Reframing Campus Conflict: Student Conduct Practice Through the Lens of Inclusive Excellence [2 ed.] 9781642670486, 9781642670493, 9781003446736

Citation preview

REFRAMING CAMPUS CONFLICT

REFRAMING CAMPUS CONFLICT Student Conduct Practice Through the Lens of Inclusive Excellence

Edited by Jennifer Meyer Schrage and Nancy Geist Giacomini Foreword by Tia Brown McNair

Preface by Karen D. Boyd, Eleanor Moody-Shepherd, and James McFadden Second Edition

First published 2020 by Stylus Publishing, LLC First Edition, 2020 Published 2023 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © 2020 by Taylor & Francis Group All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Schrage, Jennifer Meyer, 1973- editor. | Giacomini, Nancy Geist, 1961- editor. Title: Reframing campus conflict : student conduct practice through the lens of inclusive excellence / edited by Jennifer Meyer Schrage and Nancy Geist Giacomini; foreword by Tia Brown McNair ; preface by Karen Boyd, James McFadden, and Eleanor Moody-Shepherd. Description: Second edition. | Sterling, Virginia : Stylus Publishing, LLC, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020035271 | ISBN 9781642670486 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781642670493 (paperback) | Subjects: LCSH: Campus violence--United States--Prevention. | College campuses--Social aspects--United States. | Conflict management-United States. | Social justice--United States. Classification: LCC LB2345 .R44 2020 | DDC 378.1/9610973--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020035271 ISBN 13: 978-1-64267-049-3 (pbk) ISBN 13: 978-1-64267-048-6 (hbk) ISBN 13: 978-1-00-344673-6 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003446736

For my son—may you continue to learn and live peaceful and just resolution of conflict. J.M.S. For everyday learners and leaders who draw constructively from the lessons of conflict, injustice, and harm to change relationships, communities, and systems for the better. N.G.G.

CONTENTS

FOREWORD

xi

Tia Brown McNair PREFACE

xv

Karen D. Boyd, Eleanor Moody-Shepherd, and James McFadden ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

xxiii

INTRODUCTION

1

Jennifer Meyer Schrage and Nancy Geist Giacomini PART ONE: RESPONDING TO CONFLICT ON CAMPUS: FOUNDATIONS FOR STUDENT AFFAIRS EDUCATORS 1. TRANSFORMING THE CLIMATE AND CULTURE OF CAMPUS COMMUNITIES THROUGH INCLUSIVE CONFLICT EXCELLENCE

7

Nancy Geist Giacomini and Jennifer Meyer Schrage 2. RECONCILING LEGAL OBLIGATIONS WITH EDUCATION GOALS Revisiting Foundations of Student Conflict Work

41

Simone Himbeault Taylor and Donica Thomas Varner 3. WHY OBJECTIVITY IS NOT NEARLY ENOUGH The Critical Role of Social Justice in Campus Conflict and Conduct Work

78

Ryan C. Holmes, Keith E. Edwards, Tamara L. Greenfield King, and Michael M. DeBowes 4. CREATING A COMMUNITY OF INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE USING A SPECTRUM MODEL APPROACH TO CAMPUS CONFLICT

Jennifer Meyer Schrage and Monita C. Thompson

vii

101

viii   

contents

PART TWO: PATHWAYS WITHIN THE SPECTRUM MODEL 5. REVIVING DIALOGUE

129

Jennifer Meyer Schrage and E. Royster Harper 6. THE ART OF COACHING Transferring Interpersonal and Group Conflict Resolution Skills to a One-on-One Setting

144

Nancy Geist Giacomini and Patricia M. Porter 7. FACILITATED DIALOGUE An Introduction and Overview for Campus Conflict Management

171

Jay K. Wilgus and Ryan C. Holmes 8. MODELS OF MEDIATION PRACTICE

189

William Warters 9. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE

209

Andrea Goldblum 10. NEGOTIATING PEACE ON CAMPUS THROUGH SHUTTLE DIPLOMACY228

Jennifer Meyer Schrage and Veronica Hipolito 11. OFF SCRIPT Incorporating Principles of Inclusive Conflict Excellence Into Informal and Formal Adjudication Pathways

241

Nancy Geist Giacomini, David R. Karp, Derrick D. Dixon, and Valerie Glassman PART THREE: SUSTAINABLE INNOVATION AND TRANSFORMATION 12. CULTURAL RESPONSIVENESS IN STUDENT CONDUCT AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION ASSESSMENT

295

Erik Wessel and Amanda Karel 13. BUILDING RELATIONAL AND CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS The Power of Peer-Led Restorative Justice Circles Among First-Year College Students

Sheila M. McMahon and David R. Karp

308

contents  

14. CULTURE, CONFLICT, AND STUDENT LEARNING Intercultural Development for Global and Inclusive Graduates

ix 322

Julio J. Cardona, Ramona Meraz Lewis, Nathan J. Hanke, D. Eric Archer, Mary Jo E. Desprez, and Donna M. Talbot 15. KEEPING IT REAL Reflections on Inclusive Campus Leadership and Authentic Collaboration

339

Tamara L. Greenfield King and Leah A. Merrifield AFTERWORD357

Nancy Geist Giacomini and Jennifer Meyer Schrage EDITORS AND CHAPTER CONTRIBUTORS

371

INDEX385

FOREWORD

Conflict resolution is an act of hope and expression of trust. —Schrage & Giacomini, 2020

The Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) leads institutions and communities in articulating and demonstrating the value of liberal education for work, life, global citizenship, and democracy; and to catalyze reform in higher education to emphasize discovery and innovation as fundamental aspects of a liberal education (www.aacu.org). Arguably, the meaning and aims of a fundamental liberal education are tested and reimagined in the wake of a crisis like that of the 2020 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic along with the landscape of higher education as we knew it. Indeed, it is in the moments of fear and crisis that the impact of structural and systemic inequities is made painfully clear. Yet, we are steadied in times of upheaval by hope and trust as hallmarks of constructive conflict and change management, and how well inclusive missions, visions, and values align with a strategic and timely situational response. The principles of inclusive excellence endure when this alignment centers a common humanity and expands our moral universe beyond our existing relationships. AAC&U’s commitment to make excellence inclusive—to bring the benefits of liberal education to all students—is rooted deeply in the commitment to a diverse, informed, and civically active society. Diversity and equity remain fundamental goals of higher education no matter how learning is engaged; this common core is vital to a democratic workforce and the global wellbeing of the United States. This second edition of Reframing Campus Conflict advances our shared agenda as educators to make excellence inclusive by using “inclusive conflict excellence” as a frame, asking educators and practitioners to view the work of campus conduct and conflict management through lenses beyond “procedural” justice—to include social, restorative, and transformative justice. Graduating global and inclusive citizens requires experiences with conflict and change that go beyond rules and policy violations to explore the context xi

xii foreword    surrounding incidents and the oppressive systems that perpetuate injustice. This book offers educators the opportunity to guide students, as members of in-person and online scholarly communities, through conflict toward a collaborative and an improved future story by focusing on the values and context that inform perspectives. This book reminds us that the goals of inclusive excellence are relevant now more than ever as we seek to innovate and reinforce the principles of dignity, honesty, civic virtue, democratic engagement, and scholarly discourse. Teaching and modeling peaceful and just resolution of conflict are foundational to graduating global and inclusive graduates across learning platforms and programs. The spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) approach to conflict and conduct management provides the vehicle for institutions to implement inclusive conflict excellence in physical and virtual campus communities. This model offers a menu of resolution options that include dialogue, conflict coaching, facilitated dialogue, mediation, restorative practices, and shuttle diplomacy added to traditional adjudication practices. Readers are provided theoretical foundations and a review of the spectrum model combined with exploration of each pathway on the spectrum in the chapters that follow. This volume concludes with a discussion of aligning assessment strategies to inclusive excellence, exploring implementation tools, and examining what it means to be a leader committed to inclusive excellence, especially in times of change. Initiated through the W.K. Kellogg Foundation’s Truth, Racial Healing & Transformation (TRHT) effort, AAC&U works with higher education institutions across the country to develop self-sustaining, community integrated TRHT Campus Centers. Organized around the five pillars of the TRHT framework—narrative change, racial healing and relationship building, separation, law, and economy—the centers seek to prepare the next generation of leaders to dismantle the belief in a hierarchy of human value that fuels division and structural racism in our country. Like AAC&U’s work to advance the TRHT effort, this book provides administrators with specific tools for embracing conflict through truth-telling and transformation while prompting wide-scale practice innovation through multiple lenses. Transformation and system change are key elements for making excellence inclusive. By providing deep theoretical foundations, a broad framework and implementation model for higher education with transferable K–12 and human resource management applications, and a thorough review

foreword  

xiii

of specific pathways for conflict resolution, educational leaders will find this to be an invaluable resource for years to come. Tia Brown McNair, EdD Vice President for Diversity, Equity, and Student Success Executive Director for Truth, Racial Healing and Transformation Campus Centers Association of American Colleges & Universities

Reference Schrage, J. M., & Thompson, M. C. (2008, June). Using a social justice model for conflict resolution to ensure access for all students. Paper presented at the Donald D. Gehring Academy for Student Conduct Administration, Salt Lake City, UT.

Editors’ Note Tia Brown McNair (she/her) is the vice president in the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Student Success and executive director for the Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation (TRHT) Campus Centers at the Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) in Washington DC. She oversees both funded projects and AAC&U’s continuing programs on equity, inclusive excellence, high-impact practices, and student success. McNair also directs AAC&U’s Summer Institutes on High-Impact Practices and Student Success and Truth, Racial Healing, & Transformation Campus Centers. She is the coauthor of the books From Equity Talk to Equity Walk: Expanding Practitioner Knowledge for Racial Justice in Higher Education (Wiley, 2020) and Becoming a Student-Ready College: A New Culture of Leadership for Student Success (Jossey-Bass, 2016).

PREFACE We had no idea that we would be expelled from school for it [protesting segregation]. It was a Black college. It didn’t even cross our mind, or mine until it happened. . . . And I’ll go to my grave with this statement. “Due to the circumstances that you are not obeying to the rules of the state of Alabama I have no other alternative but to comply with the governor.” . . . And I turned around and walked out. It was a sad day, ‘cause I had gone through a lot even to get there. And I was still going through a lot to try to stay in school. —St. John Dixon, Lead Plaintiff, Dixon v. State of Alabama Board of Elections (1961)

H

alf a century after H. Councill Trenholm, the president of Alabama State College (ASC) delivered the news to St. John Dixon that he and eight others were expelled from ASC, Dixon remembers those words and that moment as if it were yesterday. The morning of February 25, 1960, a group of 30 ASC college students gathered to march to the Montgomery County Courthouse Grill, joining the college student sit-in movement crossing the South. No one was arrested that day; instead, they continued their gatherings almost daily, demanding change. They were removed from school less than 2 weeks later at the directive of the State of Alabama Board of Education led by Governor John M. Patterson. Before the 1960 spring term ended at ASC, the board also ordered sympathetic faculty and administrators removed. The student protestors received no notice of a hearing, no opportunity to respond to the allegations and punishment, nor were they informed exactly which events merited their removal. These actions prompted a court decision that extended constitutional protections and procedural due process to students and employees in public schools and in effect put an end to the in loco parentis student-institution relationship. The foundations of today’s conduct systems in U.S. higher education are grounded in Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961). Adopting the legal principles and values outlined in Dixon, predominantly White higher education administrators created quasi-legal processes and practices that guaranteed the right to speak but not to have the powerful listen. The activists had sought the dignity of being heard and their message respected; yet the systems Dixon launched only began to remedy the inequity and injustice that drove their actions.

xv

xvi   

preface

OUR STORY

We were Alabama State College students living at the intersection of the Jim Crow era and our hopes for a better tomorrow kindled by the Montgomery Bus Boycott. We came together with other civil rights student activists across the South to demand equal rights and to be treated with simple human dignity. We did not know if marching or sitting at “Whites Only” lunch counters would make a difference or what that difference might be. We did not anticipate that the price of our actions in the winter of 1960 would be expulsion from college and cost us our lives together. What we did know was that we were strong, and we felt ready, with the courage of our convictions, living our ancestors’ dream. We knew the dangers of simply existing in the Jim Crow South, much less protesting segregation in Montgomery, Alabama. Emmett Till was our age when he was assassinated not far from our hometowns—and we could be next. We feared for our lives as we readied ourselves for the sit-in the next morning, but knew we had to march. We simply had something inside of us that said, “It has to be me.” We acted because our convictions compelled us to make the morally right decision to act despite the risk or the cost. We found it impossible to turn away from the responsibility to continue the civil rights progress being made in Alabama. Our parents taught us that we had to do something about injustice and that when faced with injustice there are only two choices: Take action or take no action. We were taught that the responsibility rests in all of us, doing nothing makes us part of the problem. We trusted that our families would lift us up despite the lost work and death threats they might endure, and they did. We had the clarity of our convictions and found it impossible to turn away from the responsibility to continue the Civil Rights progress being made in Alabama. Note. As told by Eleanor Moody-Shepherd and James McFadden (Boyd et al., 2020).

As they left for this sit-in that morning, the male activists asked the lone woman to stay behind to spread their message of change in the event they did not come back. So it is that Eleanor Moody-Shepherd and James McFadden tell their story. After a lifetime implementing the rights they helped secure, these fellow educational administrators hope to open a new chapter in “our shared story” that fully makes the change the Dixon litigants sought: Truly restorative practice that hears the injured and honors the values driving the protest and the lawsuit that became Dixon v. State Board of Education (1961).

preface  

xvii

At the time of their protests, these young activists were not fighting for due process. After all, “The Nine,” as the expelled students referred to themselves, did not know that the consequences of their actions would be expulsion. St. John Dixon didn’t even know until years later that he was eligible to return to ASC as a student. The due process enjoyed by students today stands as an unintended consequence of Black civil rights student activists’ success. Yet, for many years historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) resisted adopting these structured processes enacted by predominantly White colleges (PWCs) because they did not fully right the wrong that motivated the decision to file Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961). HBCU administrators understood that the protestors took a stand because they wanted to be educated, treated with respect, and acknowledged as fellow human beings with unabridged rights. They knew the activists acted against being dehumanized and discounted. The chapters that comprise Reframing Campus Conflict acknowledge the systemic nature of oppression. Institutionalized oppression feeds activism. In oppression, no one is spared harm, though the injury is unequal. This situation presented H. Councill Trenholm, the widely respected African American leader of the first public HBCU, the choice between either standing up for his students and faculty by challenging the system he spent his career working to change or serving ASC, the institution that allowed him the platform to make that contribution. The students and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had hoped Trenholm would sacrifice himself for the cause. McFadden continues to wish that Trenholm had said “to the governor, or the board, or the powers that be that ‘I’m not going to do this. I’m not going to put my students out like that.’ But it’s also important to realize that even in making that decision he had our parents and people who sacrificed [for us in mind]” (J. McFadden, Leadership Research Team Interview, May 17, 2018). Trenholm chose to do what was required to save ASC from Governor Patterson’s threats, and hence his job. Although the individual students bear the scars of their removal from ASC, over time they came to recognize that their harm was shared by Trenholm when he found himself fired by the board at the governor’s request, similarly unprotected and without due process. Trenholm may have expelled The Nine, but the students had no question that it was the system that was pushing the buttons that interrupted their education. What the activists hope is remembered is that against all odds, things can change. They don’t tell the story because it was fun. It wasn’t fun. It was a moment in history that changed the course of civil rights in the United States and came to serve as an important educational legacy and template for future student engagement. In higher education and our communities at large, we continue to face similar challenges and calls to action today. The

xviii preface    struggle must move forward. We have made great strides and there are more strides to come. Each one of us finds ourselves between what is just and what is unjust, knowing we must act. Activism is the highest form of giving. There are repercussions to action for certain, but we must act anyway. If we do not, we will look back 60 years from now and realize that we were sidetracked without gains in the name of equity and justice. Issues still exist today, and opposition against the status quo that protects power will always be a challenge. Digging a pothole that intentionally interrupts an unjust course is not easy. It requires the moral courage and strength to know that, with consistency, we can change things for the better even along a well-worn path. Do the work. Putting in the work is seeking our collective story by caring enough to listen so that we may truly come to know the people whose stories we join. Educators hold power. We must remember what it is to be a student, or else we cannot be empathetic. We must draw on our hearts and minds to define the goals and strategies at play in the systems we administer. We are pawns within the system, but we can also have an impact from the inside out. Reframing Campus Conflict empowers administrators to bring their hearts and minds together to be the change The Nine sought in the system. The editors and contributors represent diverse allies within an educational system of institutionalized inequities; a system that has not yet realized the sort of inclusive conflict excellence envisioned by these protestors and conceptualized within these pages. The message of The Nine continues to drive college student conduct administrators’ decades-old journey toward justice on campus. That is, due process as expressed within a rubric of procedural justice is necessary but it is also inadequate when working with students and campuses in conflict, much less when working across difference between diverse students and administrators. Students seek compassion; empathy; trustworthiness; and to be viewed through the added lenses of restorative, social, and transformative justice. What students want remains the same as what the ASU student sitin leaders sought, to matter—to be heard, to be valued, and to be respected as members of their institutions, among their peers, and by the powerful in their communities. Back in the 1960s, the consequence of being expelled without due process set campus procedural justice practices in motion that continue to this day. In turn, it took over half a century for the campus that turned The Nine out to restore their status to being in good standing and extend a public apology for the injustices against them and others. This is a significant initial step in societally doing the work, however long it may take, of transforming systems to engage multiple lenses and process options along foundations of

preface  

xix

Figure P.1.  Student organizers’ press release.

Note. Recreated by J. Adams and K. D. Boyd. First Student Statement to the Press, original text in Montgomery Advertiser (February 29, 1960, p. 1–2). © 2020 Karen D. Boyd and Carolyn Staples. www.csctw.org

justice, fully rendered. This is what real restoration and transformation can look like. The ideas presented in this book enable conduct officers to infuse just transformative practices into the systems they administer. This model begins

xx preface    to decenter the original narrative of Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961) by challenging the processes initiated by these activists while seeking to understand what they attempted to achieve both at the lunch counter and in the court case as captured in their student press release—“In the name of love and peace we are asking for our rights” (see figure P.1). This new chapter in “our shared story” and this book both offer a vision for the ways today’s administrators can deliver what the protesters needed from Trenholm—a student conduct practice that provides leadership toward a more inclusive educational student-institution relationship—and spark the societal change the activists sought. The question remains, how will we as educators treat the students of today and tomorrow when they are inspired to act up and act out as The Nine did so many years ago? Will it be enough to exercise due process alone and call it justice, or will we draw on our own experiences and sense of right and wrong to be mentors, allies, and teachers across a range of resolution process options that empower students and center interpersonal and systemic excellence, inclusion, and justice? What we know for sure is that removing a student from their chosen educational community by due process alone is not justice. In some instances, it may be worse than being afforded no process at all. See the wrongs that we have seen in the community and working within the framework of the community to do all we could to change it. That still needs to be and is the challenge before us—It’s up to you. We’ve done what we could, now the responsibility is up to you…I can’t tell you how to treat these students … [but I can tell you to] do the right thing. (Gray, 2010)

    

Karen D. Boyd, PhD Associate Professor of Practice Director of Undergraduate Education Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies University of Tennessee at Knoxville

   

Eleanor Moody-Shepherd, EdD Dean of Students Emeritus Retired Professor of Women Studies New York Theological Seminary

   

James McFadden Civil Rights Activist Retired Administrator for the Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania Retired School Teacher for the Philadelphia School District

preface  

xxi

Authors’ Note College Students Change the World memorializes the landmark civil rights history of St. John Dixon, Eleanor Moody-Shepherd, James McFadden, and other Alabama State College activists. Visit www.csctw.org to find additional information and educational resources.

References Boyd, K. D., King, T., McFadden, J. and Moody-Shepherd, E. (2020, February). Reflections on the Alabama State College Sit-ins at 60. Opening Keynote Panel presented at the Association for Student Conduct Administration Annual Conference, Crystal City, VA. Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961). Gray, F. (2010, February). Dixon v. State of Alabama Board of Education at 50. ­Opening Keynote Speech presented at the Association for Student Conduct Administration Annual Conference, St. Petersburg, FL.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

T

his book is the product of years of ongoing conversations and collaborations with countless colleagues across fields of conduct and conflict resolution and social and restorative justice education. We honor the stories of our students and the contributions of educational professionals who first introduced the idea of adding mediation and related dispute resolution practices to conduct programs decades ago. We further acknowledge the indigenous roots of restorative practices and principles that provide both a foundation and pathway for community peacemaking. We notice the voices of students who push for positive change, including the six Black students who challenged an institution’s right to expel them following their decision to participate in a civil rights demonstration by not giving up their seats at a “Whites only” lunch counter. In so doing, they championed the foundations of due process rights for all students as guided by the landmark 1961 Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education U.S. federal court decision. This work was originally informed by the conversation that began in 2008 among faculty brought together by Nancy Geist Giacomini to facilitate the first Conflict Resolution Specialist program at the Donald D. Gehring Academy for Student Conduct Administration, hosted by the Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA). It was here that the ­spectrum model, the shared creation of Jennifer Meyer Schrage and Monita C. Thompson featured in this book, was introduced to represent the ideals of social justice, diversity, and inclusive conflict resolution inspired by their work at the University of Michigan (U-M). Thank you to the U-M Student Life team for inspiring collaborative innovation devoted to building more diverse, equitable, and inclusive educational environments, with a special thank-you to former Vice President E. Royster Harper and Interim Vice President Simone Himbeault Taylor for their ongoing challenge and support. Schrage would also like to acknowledge fellow faculty and law students at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University and colleague Cindy Payne and graduate students in the Department of Educational Leadership program in the Northern Arizona University College of Education; our academic and classroom discussions on social and restorative justice, dispute resolution, and the ever-changing context influenced this publication. xxiii

xxiv   

acknowledgments

We express gratitude to the University of Delaware where Giacomini launched her career in residence life and student conduct administration and set the course for her journey as an educator, mediator, and advocate for inclusive conflict excellence as introduced for the first time in this publication. Thanks too, for the wisdom gained in mediation practice with the PA Office for Dispute Resolution, one of just four statewide programs across the United States recognized as exemplary by the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE). Giacomini extends additional appreciation to Sullivan University and St. Bonaventure University and their students for the privilege to teach graduate conflict and human resource management courses and mentor doctoral students as they make their own contributions to the field. We owe a great deal to those who provided review and assistance, sometimes under very short deadlines. Thank you for valued feedback from son Max Schrage and student Jack Chadwick of the Social Justice Pathway program at Palo Alto High School, and to daughters Kaylee and Devon Giacomini for providing insight and perspective on the current college student experience, especially in the continued wake of changing health, education, and economic challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. Being a parent in college Facebook groups brings a whole new vantage point to this work. So does being poised at the tipping point of life and learning before and after a pandemic response. We pay tribute to our friends at Stylus Publishing and to our contributors and their respective institutions, organizations, and families. Thank you for your commitment to ensuring a timely, relevant, and meaningful anniversary edition of this expanded and fully updated publication informed through many lenses and at a time of unprecedented crisis management, innovation as impacted by the dual pandemics of racism and COVID-19, and change. This publication is no less groundbreaking and applicable as our advocacy with a new generation of learners, practitioners, and educators continues. Finally, we thank our partners, friends, and families for their patient support as we invested significant personal time, energy, and attention to this shared endeavor. Championing theory to practice innovations that further social, restorative, transformative, and procedural justice for students and campus communities as coeditors is a labor of love. We are grateful beyond measure to be engaged in this lifelong work together, and with each of you.

INTRODUCTION Jennifer Meyer Schrage and Nancy Geist Giacomini But it is more often more important to be ahead of the majority and this means being willing to cut the first furrow in the ground and stand alone for a while if necessary. — U.S. Representative Patsy Takemoto Mink (first woman of color elected to Congress and coauthor of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972)

W

ith this second edition of our original landmark volume, we invite readers to embrace a broad and diverse menu of conflict resolution options in higher education, with in-person and online transferability across K–12 education and into other organizations. Our well-vetted approach features the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) to render an inclusive visual of the informal to formal pathways to manage student conduct and conflict. It further provides the answer to why integrated and innovative process options are necessary in today’s campus climate as a working expression of what it means to institutionalize systems that support missions of social justice and inclusive excellence. The why of this model and companion work rests on the common ground of our shared core educational values, including a commitment to learning and development; freedom of expression; diversity and inclusion as cultural mainstays; and shared responsibilities for care, civility, and restoration in a community of learners. The why lifts up discounted resolution practices and reminds us that systems and models are simply vehicles for us to act on our values and catalysts to challenge a status quo. Student development theory has paved the way for leading educational practice models meant to meet the needs of all students in appropriate developmental ways, and legal precedents from a criminal justice framework continue to influence procedural considerations in campus conduct and related protocols. Critical race theory and social and cultural identity development theories continue to reshape our understanding of individual differences across identities and expressions that impact the human experience. Our appreciation of these differences is further informed by social justice theory and (new in this second edition) inclusive excellence, as championed by the Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) to expand 1

2 introduction    awareness and propel disruption and change in higher education, student affairs, and traditional conduct administration and related systems that perpetuate inequity. This fully revised and updated second edition of Reframing Campus Conflict is again framed in three parts as it gives voice to diverse and inclusive perspectives, identities, and practices. Part One, “Responding to Conflict on Campus: Foundations for Student Affairs Educators,” establishes the premise that reframing campus conflict on foundations of social justice and restorative justice is necessary to disrupt and transform overly legalistic and escalated management applications in student conduct administration through a lens of inclusive excellence. Chapter 1 considers climate and culture on U.S.-based campuses inclusive of online functionality as we enter a new postpandemic decade and the tension created by competing interests of institutionalizing authentic expressions of diverse and inclusive learning-oriented communities while meeting enrollment, health, risk management, legal and public relations responsibilities. We also introduce the idea of “inclusive conflict excellence” as a framework for balancing the social, restorative, transformative, and procedural justice lenses of our work. Chapter 2 describes how the theoretical and legal foundations for student conduct work support the integrated use of conflict resolution methods and social and restorative justice practices in the field. Chapter 3 reflects anew on social justice and the fallacy of objectivity in connection to student conduct and conflict resolution and management practice. Chapter 4 introduces the spectrum model approach pioneered by Schrage and Thompson in 2008 to expand practice options beyond existing adjudication models across a foundation of social justice and restorative justice and informed through the lens of inclusive excellence. Part Two, “Pathways Within the Spectrum Model,” deconstructs the spectrum model in seven chapters devoted to each of the conflict-­resolution pathways introduced. The order of these chapters is intentional and follows the model. We begin with informal pathways that involve minimal structure and little to no third-party facilitation or administrator intervention. Chapter 5 explains the fundamental value of constructive dialogue as both a resolution pathway and an important skill set incorporated across each pathway along the continuum. Chapter 6 endorses conflict coaching as an increasing mainstay in conflict-resolution curriculum and practice while introducing new transferable and cross-functional ombuds principles and guidelines. Chapter 7 describes facilitated dialogue as a unique process for low-level conflict, and chapter 8 provides an overview of mediation as a historical milestone in the expansion of traditional student conduct practice. Chapters 9, 10, and 11 introduce the middle pathways of the spectrum where third-party support

introduction  

3

and structure increases. The steadfast and growing principles and practices as encompassed within the restorative justice pathway and that guide responses to community harm are covered in chapter 9 and are indicative of the growing visibility and popularity of restorative practices since the first edition of Reframing Campus Conflict. Chapter 10 investigates shuttle diplomacy as its own pathway and as a companion practice to other resolution options requiring intentionality to balance power and identity. Part Two closes with chapter 11 and a realistic look at how informal and formal adjudication pathways can be reimagined in ways that authentically move the needle toward social justice and restorative justice through the lens of inclusive excellence and how this can be done without trading on individual rights and risk management. Part Three, “Sustainable Innovation and Transformation,” concludes our collaborative vision with tested assessments and innovative approaches to intercultural learning to build student capacity for effectively engaging across difference. Chapter 12 advances cultural responsiveness assessment approaches at two institutions, chapter 13 demonstrates the power of peerled restorative justice circles with first-year students, and chapters 14 and 15 orient us into the future with observations on intercultural development for global and inclusive graduates and the necessity of inclusive campus leadership and collaboration powered by senior-level voices. Program development and implementation models as well as shared stories content found in the first edition have been incorporated across chapters in the second edition, together with end-of-chapter questions, case studies, and worksheets for added reflection and dialogue. The release of the second edition of Reframing Campus Conflict in the midst of a pandemic and racial justice activism, calls on each of us to lead purposeful dialogue and change while practicing both self care and care for others. To this end we encourage an added common prompt across chapters that leverages the proverb “necessity is the mother of invention” and seeks ways to reimagine rather than recycle missions of inclusive excellence and applications of justice as found in conflict and conduct practice. How will we seize this black swan moment of imperative shortand long-term change while balancing roles across steadier and innovator, disrupter and peace keeper, learner and teacher? How will we encourage our field to resist a swing toward authority and hard lines in a landscape of increased fear and decreased resources? This is the task at hand, and we conclude this second edition with an afterword that wrestles anew with inclusive responses to “good trouble” in the time of a pandemic and significant social unrest. In this updated publication, we celebrate the collaborative and sustained effort it takes to disrupt systemic inequity on campus and bring vision into alignment with student conduct practice and campus conflict management;

4 introduction    this despite an ever-changing litigious landscape that often chills rather than encourages systemic change and inclusive excellence through thoughtful justice and cross-functional applications of student development and community responsibility. Legitimate and often discounted pathways of conflict resolution meant to empower individuals rather than deliver cases into the most formal and often costly systems of redress are elevated to equal scrutiny and consideration to that of formal adjudication as we endorse a model approach that in many ways is already in use within indigenous communities (for centuries) and adopted over the past few decades by K–12 schools, special education programs, juvenile justice and multi-door criminal justice systems, restorative community centers, faith-based organizations, corporate human resource departments, and government agencies. We invite renewed, robust dialogue between higher education colleagues, students, and external stakeholders whose due north continues to guide them on the journey of study, research, teaching, practice, design, and evaluation of partnerships that embody inclusive excellence and give justice—social, restorative, transformative, and procedural—agency in higher education. We invite you to step out ahead of this moment as innovators and early majority adopters to stand your ground as educators committed to student learning in a shifting legal and social landscape and continue this movement toward integrated systems of conflict resolution and conduct management in which every individual member of the community, both in person and online, valued. It is with this respect for diversity, inclusion, and innovation that we continue the conversation with you.

Reference Schrage, J. M., & Thompson, M. C. (2008, June). Using a social justice model for conflict resolution to ensure access for all students. Paper presented at the Donald D. Gehring Academy for Student Conduct Administration, Salt Lake City, UT.

PA RT O N E R E S P O N D I N G TO CONFLICT ON CAMPUS: F O U N D AT I O N S F O R S T U D E N T A F FA I R S   E D U C ATO R S

1 TRANSFORMING THE C L I M A T E A N D C U LT U R E OF CAMPUS COMMUNITIES THROUGH INCLUSIVE CONFLICT EXCELLENCE Nancy Geist Giacomini and Jennifer Meyer Schrage Peace Education is called transformative education because it seeks changes—in people’s mindsets, attitudes, values, and behaviors that, in the first place, have either created or exacerbated violent conflicts. —Navarro-Castro & Nario-Galace (2010, p. 27)

Introduction Campus staff meet hundreds of thousands of diverse new learners each year. We celebrate these students’ countless milestones and sit with them when they struggle to connect, achieve, and succeed on their chosen path, or the one chosen for them. We watch Sanford’s foundational student development theory of challenge and support play out in real time, moderated by the readiness of each student to learn in community with others. The experiences that stick with us, and shape who we ourselves become as professionals in higher education, are the ones that challenge us too. We wrestle with stories like that of “Ms. UVA,” shared later in this chapter, stories that remind us of how quickly a beloved campus can turn on a student, or bravado can turn to shame and anger, and the toll it takes on students and families. We remember the students who come to campus, both physically and remotely, with existing trauma and food, housing, and tuition insecurities. Sometimes 7

8 responding to conflict on campus    the experiences of our students resonate and validate our own awareness. In other instances, they test our personal multicultural capacity and push us to become more aware, empathetic, and responsive across visible and invisible identities and lived experiences. Our professional lens is shaped by stories like that of the student who identifies as a first-generation college goer, alleged to have sexually assaulted another student. He will join his campus hearing remotely from the privacy of his car, because his parents do not speak English and don’t know, nor would they comprehend in translation, what their son is facing and why. Our professional resolve may be tested when engaging the first-year honors student identified on the autism spectrum in our conduct process. They are alleged to have plagiarized a paper and, unmoved by reassurances, changes their course of study and career trajectory, for fear that the path into the legal profession will forever be compromised by a disciplinary record that will outlive graduation. We consider the campus communities ripped apart by external agitators whose agenda is to inflame destructive student conflict. They are long gone by the time students face the aftermath of both a potential disciplinary and digitally archived social media record of their passionate response to provocation. We carry the story of the student who has not yet come out and sits with staff trying to find the words to reconcile the same-sex assault they experienced last weekend. Stories include the bewildered 17-year-old White partygoer who ignites a campus firestorm and fields social media attacks when her Halloween costume is called out as not only racist but also symbolic of a racist campus. She wore the same costume last year in high school and won a coveted prize. The stories we tell recount students whose addiction or anxiety or depression brings them to our offices, and those who come to us already distrustful of systems in place to police behavior on campus because they have been harmed by similar systems and people in the past. We represent these stories because they remind us that there is no single common student experience nor one-size-fits-all approach to the roles and responsibilities we are privileged to fill. We are part of the integrated educational enterprise that is higher education, ambassadors for institutional missions that drive strategic long-term and everyday diversity and inclusion commitments in civil, learning-centered communities. Modeling what it means to advocate for just campus communities is a primary function of practice in higher education across units and at all levels of the institution. Thus, our premise is simple enough: Campuses that advance integrated and sustained systems and build the multicultural and conflict capacity of staff and students are better able to tailor campus responses that respect

transforming the climate and culture  

9

diverse learners, foster healthy climates of learning, and shape constructive conflict cultures than those that do not. We know this based on the legacy of cultural storytelling, student development and identity theories revisited across chapters, and research, including that which challenges the notion that standardized systems that cater to the “average student” are equipped to recognize and be responsive to the unique and individual needs of all students, equitably. In his book The End of Average: How We Succeed in a World that Values Sameness (2015), Harvard educator Todd Rose reviews the science establishing that every single student is different and no one is average. Educational systems relying on a standardization paradigm fail on the mission of student learning.

A Framework for Inclusive Conflict Excellence The conflict and conduct management pathways presented in this collaborative work share a continuum in the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) on theoretical foundations of restorative and social justice. Principles and values embedded in this practice model are expanded and enhanced through curated lenses of inclusive excellence and directly relate to one another within the scope of justice. At its core, conflict and conduct management is an exercise in holding the vision and trusting the process (with credit to a popular quote by an anonymous author). This idea is familiar to staff who sit with students in conflict and facilitate understanding, accountability, and constructive change. The process, wherever found along the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) and however it comes together as a system of conflict management and agent of change, must fundamentally be one of empowerment, capacity-building, restoration, transformation, and social justice if it is to indeed be trustworthy and embody what we have come to call inclusive conflict excellence. Fundamentally, conflict resolution is an act of hope and expression of trust; we believe that the present and future can be better than a conflicted and unjust past, and we, as relational individuals across identity affiliations, choose to invest in just communities and work for peace. In practice, people trust the process because we know that conflict yields change, and change is good and necessary for growth in all things. Coming together to find common ground makes space for understanding, empathy, shared solution-­ building, and mutual goal fulfillment necessary for sustainable communities to survive and thrive. In the absence of trust and hope, there can be

10 responding to conflict on campus    no sustainable agreement, no peace, and no constructive lasting change. We become mired in destructive cycles and intractable impasse. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Gottman, 1999) ride in as criticism, defensiveness, stonewalling, and contempt to signal that the end of a relationship is near, while Coleman (2014) sounds the alarm that “our greatest hope in working intractable conflicts is to find the means to avert them” (p. 739). Once we devolve into contempt it is hard to keep destructiveness, fear, hate, and violence at bay. When these things become entangled with the “us and them” culture(s) in which we identify, and shape our experience of climate, conflict resolution becomes a daunting climb up the metaphoric slope of “conflict as an iceberg.” With this footing, positions and people remain unmoved while potential danger and destruction lurks beneath the waterline. When these concepts are applied to higher education, across U.S. flagship institutions, historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), state college networks, community colleges, trade schools, and online degreebearing platforms, together with all the other structured ways we learn, we recognize both the necessity and complexity of shaping and holding a shared vision of building capacity for inclusive conflict excellence. Inclusive conflict excellence borrows from the Association of American Colleges & Universities’ (AAC&U) central principle of “Making Excellence Inclusive,” unpacked into the four core principles of diversity, inclusion, equity and equity-mindedness (Williams et al., 2005). We introduce inclusive conflict excellence as a comprehensive new lens in our second edition of Reframing Campus Conflict to bring added meaning to the lenses of conflict and conduct practice, inclusive of but not limited to procedural, restorative, social, and transformative justice. It is a privilege and responsibility to introduce the collaborative work ahead. From the foreword and preface to our concluding chapter, we are inspired by the company we keep while turning shared new lenses and diverse perspectives on higher education and student life, with transferable in-person and online applications into K–12 learning and organizational human resource management. In this chapter we consider the current and continuously shifting general campus climate informed by present and future U.S. student demographics and impacted by individual campus cultures as microcosms to the bigger picture of the United States today. This overview helps calibrate our assertions about the need and opportunity for more meaningful and inclusive conduct and conflict resolution applications. Our aim is to see with clarity the needs of student learners, today and into the future, who identify as campus community stakeholders and to drive advocacy for systemic change and responsive innovation. Understanding the interplay between individual students

transforming the climate and culture  

11

and their chosen campus communities lays the important foundation for this book, namely that the diversity of learners and the issues they navigate at once invites and demands just, creative, and educational responses in addition to the conscientious application of traditional procedural safeguards as found in campus disciplinary and conflict management processes. It is past time to reframe the higher education dialogue in ways that remediate and transform structurally predetermined inequity and injustice much like that found in the retributive orientations to justice that have shaped the foundations of traditional student conduct practice. We must recognize that the temptation to regress and rely on such authoritarian models for efficiently addressing behavior will be even greater in a higher education landscape destabilized by a struggling economy. We cannot do this relational community work with integrity if we sustain and advance missions of inclusive excellence in education with fruit from a poisoned tree. From this foundation, contributors expand the premise that traditional campus adjudication models and companion misconduct practices and policies informed by adjudication standards are not keeping pace with (a) stated individual and institutional core values; (b) tracked and reported diversity trends in our student bodies; (c) our own developmental convictions to balance student learning and development with justice not only in practice, training, and language but also within and throughout our systems; and (d) the necessity of nimble, inclusive, and responsive innovation and leadership in times of change. This was true 10 years ago, and it is true today. When we introduced the first edition of Reframing Campus Conflict in 2009 we expressed optimism in the increasingly evident paradigm shift away from legalese as reflected in revisions to the guidance of the model code (Stoner & Lowery, 2004) and rebranding of the leading professional association from the Association for Student Judicial Affairs (ASJA) to the updated Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA). These changes marked what we viewed as a positive movement away from one-size-fits-all standardization and what many campus administrators were compelled to shape into quasi-courtroom proceedings in the name of due process (something the model code’s authors never intended), and toward embracing the more educational, collaborative, and inclusive approaches typically found in the language and processes of conflict resolution and restorative justice principles and practices. There is evidence to buoy confidence that inroads have and continue to be made these past 10 years, expanding conduct and conflict-related practices across a range of options as found along the spectrum model (Schrage

12 responding to conflict on campus    & Thompson, 2008). Multiday mediation training remains popular and, in some cases, has been used to create skill modules for peers and residential staff to engage in community conflict. Diversity peer mentor roles, new in the last decade, have been added on many campuses to further institutional missions of diversity, equity, and inclusion. These staff draw uniquely on intergroup dialogue and facilitation skills to respond to and de-escalate conflict as communities come together to repair harm and restore trust while building greater multicultural capacity for improved campus climate. Structurally, many, even most, conduct offices have rebranded office nomenclature, policies, correspondence, and scripted protocol that act to balance rights, risks, and relationships. New too is the advent of chief diversity, inclusion, equity, and human rights positions that incorporate conflict management principles aligned with diversity, inclusion, social justice, and inclusive excellence-related missions. Campuses now have dedicated coordinators reporting to the highest levels of leadership and deputies responsible for proactive and reactive gender equity applications including protocol when sexual misconduct and harassment allegations and complaints are made. The people who fill these positions juggle to exhaustion facilitation, mediation, shuttle diplomacy, investigation, and adjudication practices within an untenable risk-management rubric. The toll of this work is just becoming clear as colleagues are stretched to the point of burnout, attrition, and termination from Title IX–related positions and the field altogether. Restorative justice has reached a new milestone in a long history with indigenous roots as a popular area of inquiry and practice in our ongoing search for better ways to implement justice on campuses, seeking to transform or modulate a retributive orientation to conduct with one more suited to restoration, trust, and learning. By example, the University of Pennsylvania launched an associate director of restorative practices at Penn position to spearhead the university’s restorative mission under the direction of the Office of Student Conduct. Campus PRISM: Promoting Restorative Initiatives for Sexual Misconduct on College Campuses coordinated by the University of San Diego Center for Restorative Justice offers healing and accountability options and resources not found in traditional adjudication models in instances of reported sexual- and gender-based violence. Conflict coaching, while not always found by name or under a dedicated position, shows up in residential meetings with students experiencing conflict; in the protocol and language used for informal adjudication meetings; and by staff who provide complainant and respondent process guidance, including student sexual misconduct allegation investigations and resolution processes. Ombudsperson programs and related resources that endorse many

transforming the climate and culture  

13

of the practices, principles, and skill sets along integrated conflict resolution models have been established and are on the rise to support students, faculty, and staff at higher rates than previously experienced. While sustained research is sparse, Katz and Kovack (2016) provide direct data related to applications of spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) pathways at 100 U.S. colleges and universities. During the 2013–2014 fall terms, graduate students at Nova Southeastern University in Florida identified one hundred (100) higher education institutions with successful ADR practices, finding great variety in services, location, staffing, funding, and populations served. The research . . . demonstrates wide use of ADR practices consistent with recommendations from the Association of Conflict Resolution (ACR), the International Restorative Justice Association (IRJA), the Association of Student Conduct Administration (ASCA), the American Arbitration Association (AAA), globally-recognized experts in the field of conflict resolution, and is believed to be reflective of the current student affairs’ ADR climate in higher education settings. The research identified realistic alternative resolution pathways to facilitated dialogue and creative problem solving, proactively manage risk mitigation with equitable social justice best practices to promote diversity of cultures and perspectives, and apply restorative practices to maintain community health and standards. (Katz & Kovack, 2016, p. 5)

The paradigm continues to shift away from outdated adjudication-only models and will into the future. Still, the pendulum of change swings on a landscape that heaves across tension among risk management, student development, and overall service delivery. Federal intervention has had dramatic and lasting implications for campus practitioners, risk managers, complainants, and respondents caught up in original 2011 protocol guidance for investigating and adjudicating student sexual misconduct and harassment on campus. In turn, positions, offices, and cross-functional teams, spawned by a decade of interpretations related to the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter (Ali, 2011) and reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (2013), have been left to wrestle with what to do next in the wake of policy rollbacks and new 2020 rulemaking under the current U.S. political leadership. Bias response efforts in campus communities are weathering related upheaval as courts weigh in on the impact on individual freedoms and the right to free speech (FIRE, 2020). New ways of operationalizing justice via disciplinary systems on campus have had the consequence of added scrutiny and precedent-setting in the

14 responding to conflict on campus    courts. Due process standards, hazing response obligations, mental health protocol, and free speech violations represent just a few examples of evolving case law for educators to digest and apply. Case by case, it becomes clear that even the best of intentions and good-faith efforts on campus to resolve complex and often high-stakes interpersonal harms and code violations seem destined for review and re-litigation in the courts and in the court of public opinion as media coverage prompts onlookers to weigh in. In this climate educators engaged in campus conflict management work daily to reconcile the courage of their social justice convictions and the fear associated with risk management. It is an untenable position in which student development and cultural identity literature and cell phone contact lists that include the campus attorney and public affairs staff compete for priority attention. Still, it is because of, rather than despite, this context pulling educators toward the false security of standardization in conflict and conduct management that we reaffirm our call to resist models and single-lens approaches that fail to balance all of the lenses of our work and see the full range of student needs. To this end, this chapter provides context for the collaborative work to come, as contributors make the theory to practice case for institutionalizing a continuum of expanded process options represented in the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) approach to student conflict and conduct management. We continue to trust the process of conflict and change as we turn a contemporary lens of inclusive conflict excellence to bring added cohesion and focus to perspectives across learning and development, access and inclusion, community restoration, and rights and responsibilities considerations. Viewed together, these complimentary lenses provide clarity and help us to see students in new ways so that we can more effectively and constructively engage them as learners, from foundations rooted in justice. Our invitation across these pages is to be open to the idea that seeing the world through multiple lenses and the eyes and experiences of students across identities is as important to this kaleidoscope of moving parts as forecasting admission numbers and crafting risk-averse policies. The more we buy into higher education as big business with a bottom line, the less we will find and live into our purpose as robust and inclusive student-centered educational enterprises. We must also commit to being vulnerable to a personal and professional journey that promotes stepping into the shoes of others and walking “with” as allies. Educators and practitioners; leaders and policy makers; online resource providers and standardized test makers; lawyers, students, and families alike are responsible for collaborative approaches to teaching, modeling, and administrating justice. To do this well, we need to

transforming the climate and culture  

15

appreciate and be responsive to what it feels like to be part of today’s higher education student community while anticipating future student trends; and we need to genuinely care. Through lived personal and professional experiences, contributors in upcoming chapters use application and assessment contributions, anecdotes, and case studies about the impact of our systems of justice on individuals and groups that share a campus tethered community. Your own reflections, dialogue, and storytelling are encouraged, with new end-of-chapter questions to engage individually and with others and in common context to emerging opportunities for innovation in times of sudden change.

Assessing Culture and Climate in U.S. Higher Education Communities Internal and external campus stakeholders are increasingly aware of the often subtle and pervasive impact of campus culture and climate. Positive perceptions of culture and climate are marketed by admissions efforts in ways that attract prospective students and their families. Some look for exceptional school spirit and competitive sports as their cultural norm of choice. Others seek a campus culture and climate known for academic rigor and a competitive institutional ranking. Cultures that perpetuate destructive norms (i.e., rape cultures, locker-room cultures, cheating cultures, etc.) are not as readily advertised, and are increasingly called out as antithetical to inclusive higher education missions. Campus climate surveys are widely used in the United States to gather data points and direct meaningful interventions related to common issues such as student alcohol and other drug use, sexual misconduct rates, and mental health challenges. Individuals that share a campus community experience culture and climate in different ways and are both influenced by and exert influence on their shared community.

Culture Culture, simply put, is the collective embodiment of stated and unstated norms, traditions, values, celebrations, stories, rules, and so forth that provide the glue that holds a group together. Common lexicon might reference a destructive “rape culture” to identify systemic misogyny and violence against women, or “locker-room culture” to describe a community that finds cohesiveness in language that discounts others. We identify with each other around these related cultural underpinnings to meet basic human needs including that of a sense of belonging. This need is so strong that members of a cultural

16 responding to conflict on campus    identity group may go along with a tradition, celebration, or act that would be non-normative or destructive outside the cultural circle so as not to risk exclusion. Staying silent about hazing and bigoted party themes feeds on this culturally instilled fear of exclusion, as do coercive acts of sexual assault. Maslow’s (1943) pioneering pyramid hierarchy, familiar to many, scaffolds needs from the ground up as physiological needs, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization, in that order. So, in the context of campus culture, a student will not have the capacity to reach for higher-order needs related to confidence, relationship-building, intimacy, and multicultural respect for others until and unless they feel secure in their physical wellbeing. Self-actualization, in turn, depends on the fulfillment and stability of all other precursor needs. A working understanding of these foundations must be represented when discussions are being had and decisions are being made that relate to student food, housing, and economic/tuition insecurities. Maslow’s work reinforces the notion that people are essentially good as long as their fundamental needs for affection and security are met. Give people affection and security, and they will be affectionate and secure and behave accordingly. Trust is related to need fulfillment. It is a universal ingredient to the human condition in that we must trust and be trusted to survive as social beings in an interconnected world. A trustworthy individual is better positioned to serve community leadership and problem-solving roles as well as build sustained interpersonal relationships. Trustworthiness also extends into systems in ways that constructively or destructively impact expressions of climate and culture. We are witness to unprecedented modality change in communication as another driver of culture. One of the biggest generational differences is the ease with which we have access to resources and the ease with which resources have access to us. With a couple keystrokes, we have unlimited and unfiltered information as social media feeds us everything from breaking news to bystander videos, targeted solicitations, and the curated goings on of our friends, family, and colleagues. Online connections bring non-mainstream communities together too while peddling in the counterculture interests of extremism, strategic propaganda “memes” aimed at desensitization, sex trafficking, pedophilia, porn, and violence. The social exclusion trend of “call-out culture” and “cancel culture” introduces another cultural phenomenon as social media is used to shut out and shut down a problematic or offensive idea, act, or actor and take away power. Communities have always found ways to turn their backs on their own, however hurtful; this is the silent treatment amplified. Some would say

transforming the climate and culture  

17

it also works against the values imbedded in the ideals of student learning and development endorsed here. We write about reframing campus conflict through lenses of before and after the internet, social media, the relentless cycle of breaking news, and the advent of “fake news.” The digital native generation born after 1995 only knows the aftermath of what it is to live in community with others, modulated by an online web. Students quite literally may not know how college worked before the internet as exemplified in an exchange that “went viral” in which the son expressed dismay that students had to walk across campus to read notes left on a professor’s door to know that a class was canceled or assignment changed. Cork boards and push pins as communication staples have been replaced in a culture of tweets, texts, and email (Abrahamson, October 1, 2019, personal communication). Communication and how we receive and share information have been fundamentally changed forever. This in turn changes our experience of conflict and conduct, the topics central to this work, which has an additional related impact on community, culture, and climate. We cannot assert an inclusive voice without representing the student experience of campus community as distinct from that of our own.

Climate While culture is the standard bearer in a community of people who identify with one another related to shared values, beliefs, and norms, climate is how we experience and feel about this shared community. Culture is often slow to change. Climate is mercurial. The intangible feel of a place can shift and properties change. This can occur gradually as our awareness of the community around us grows and perceptions change. Our experience of climate can also be abrupt, when an experience or new awareness jars our senses and calls into immediate question how we have come to trust a place and its people. In her publication Biased: Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes What We See, Think, and Do, Eberhardt (2019) recounts the story of a student so in love with her University of Virginia campus community that she called herself “Ms. UVA.” That is until the night she witnessed White nationalists reciting anti-Semitic chants and carrying torches through her beloved campus quad on the eve of her senior year. In this moment, her experience of safety and community fundamentally changed. Her sense of identity was compromised and diminished to that of a Jew who did not belong; she removed a piece of jewelry that might identify this salient piece of her identity and sought safety in the home of a professor, struggling to make sense of what was unfolding before her eyes (Eberhardt, 2019).

18   

responding to conflict on campus

This moving story is echoed in the sense of loss and unease experienced by those who identify as survivors of campus rape, acts of intolerance based on identity, violence, and other acts that challenge a sense of self, safety, and belonging in a community. Perceptions of harm and injustice can rock a sense of immediate and sustained well-being. Posttraumatic stress can persist a lifetime. Humans are resilient and relationships with people and places can be restored and transformed. Still, experiences shape climate and climate can become toxic based on trauma, new awareness, sustained experiences, and even our unique orientations to justice and agency in conflict. The more people who share an experience of harm and trauma, the more toxic the overall climate; the more who enjoy a sense of positive belongingness in a constructive community, the healthier the experience of climate might be said to be.

Conflict Culture An increasingly diverse student demographic (and family of stakeholders) with different lived and identity-based experiences, interpretations, and expectations naturally impacts how conflict and conduct is engaged in a community. Different communication patterns, expressions, and language can further exacerbate commonplace misunderstandings that often fuel conflict. We use the term conflict culture here to speak to the unique perceptions, stories, and response repertoire that an individual carries with them in conflict. The convergence of varying conflict cultures on campus also provides insight on climate. Social identity groups that enjoy a historical and long tradition of access to U.S. higher education (typically grouped as White male–identified people of financial means) likely align with characteristics of the dominant U.S. conflict culture that places value on third-party decision-makers, competition, individual responsibility for choices, autonomy, and self-reliance (Pillay, 2006). These align with what anthropologist Edward T. Hall (1976) called low-context communication styles. That is, direct and verbal communication is emphasized, words maintain literal meaning, and messages are explicit. The dominant conception of identity in these populations is individualistic, as labeled by Charles Hampden-Turner and Fons Trompenaars (2000). These Western-centric orientations are not universal. International students and domestic underrepresented minority students may embrace very different conflict cultures that favor high-context communication styles; nonverbal, indirect communication; implicit messages; and context and implied meaning associated with a situation. Here, communitarianism is the

transforming the climate and culture  

19

prevailing conception for self and identity. This means cooperation, deference toward elders, interdependence, and group harmony are considered the cultural norms (Pillay, 2006). Students are informed by a range of multidimensional rather than singular cultural and personal experiences. Further, personal circumstances, peer groups, role models and identity development during the college years stand to cause a student to adjust their situational approach to conflict over time, both in constructive and potentially destructive ways. Understanding the interconnected concepts of identity, conflict capacity, and discipline lends insight into the unique needs and interests of students in conflict while exposing areas of disconnection between students, discipline, and student conduct service models. For frame of reference, K–12 into juvenile and adult criminal justice system data exposes generally regarded disproportional rates of discipline, suspension, incarceration, and overall negative impacts on people of color. Stanford University research established that “on average, districts with larger Black-White achievement gaps have larger Black-White discipline gaps and vice versa” (Pearman et al., 2019, p. 15).  Their national sample of youth in third to eighth grade will comprise the potential campus students of tomorrow. This and other K–12 research provides relevant and important context for higher education, a field in which research related to discipline and identity is lacking. The authors of the Stanford study highlighted the promise of inclusive conflict excellence practices to address the disparate impact of traditional disciplinary practices: A body of evidence is emerging on alternative disciplinary practices that can reduce the time students spend out of the learning environment. Schoolwide approaches like positive behavior interventions and supports as well as restorative justice practices have shown some promise at reducing the use of exclusionary discipline (Baker, 2008; Bradshaw et al., 2010; Gonzalez, 2015; Horner et al., 2009; Morrison, 2007). (p. 14) 

Similarly, the education think tank Fix School Discipline catalogs study after study that reveal that students of color are treated more harshly in traditional school discipline systems. It is notable that alternative restorative pathways continue to be validated as effective countermeasures against this bias in school disciplinary and juvenile justice systems because they shift the outcome toward increased support, healing, education, and growth and away from harsh punitive sanctions (Davis, 2019). Pearman et al. (2019) also notice the contradictions inherent between governmental guidance related to education and justice and the research:

20   

responding to conflict on campus

Despite growing attention to disparate discipline and the overuse of exclusionary practices, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Education recently rescinded so-called Obama-era discipline guidelines, which called for increased equity in discipline (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Consequently, recent efforts by districts nationwide to implement policies designed to reduce the use of exclusionary discipline may soon wane (Steinberg & Lacoe, 2017). The results presented in this article should caution against such moves. While not a perfect one-to-one relationship, our results suggest that discipline gaps and achievement gaps are, in fact, parts of the “same coin” (Gregory et al., 2010). (p. 15) 

Beyond the lessons of K–12 discipline, Bryan Stevenson (2014), author of Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption, is a leading advocate for systemic transformation based on widely regarded inequities in criminal justice. The idea of a school-to-prison pipeline is part of our common cultural frame of reference, and while direct research that examines racial disparity in student conduct systems is scarce in higher education, we can deduce that similar gaps and biases that influence both student discipline and criminal justice, including who gets reported for alleged misconduct and who does not, can be found in higher education. Being proactive rather than reactive demands this cohesive context across K–12 and higher education as educators and families express similar and growing concerns related to student conduct, conflict, trauma, equity, and inclusion on campus (Strauss, 2018). Student experiences across conflict and conduct management in education are unique based on how they identify with their personal conflict culture, level of self-awareness, stories, and personal development intersecting with the climate and culture of their campus community. These factors directly affect how a student will experience, respect, comply with, and engage or not engage in conflict management and disciplinary processes. Even campus programs that have adopted developmental language and educational sanctions still structurally align with a retributive framework that often prompts defensiveness and distrust over accountability and learning. In these ways, common campus adjudication models still send a message that the discipline policy is in place to reign in or turn out a student whose power is subordinate to that of the institution. Higher education and the systems in place to protect individual rights, community civility, and institution liability represent a microcosm of the lived campus experience; what is experienced in higher education is interconnected with the national and global climate and culture and fluctuates accordingly. Political side-taking that divides people along cultural lines is

transforming the climate and culture  

21

an important case in point. Those who share a more individualistic orientation to the world with shared values of competition, autonomy, and selfreliance may find their people and expression along the right of the political spectrum. Those for which communitarianism resonates with collective values rooted in cooperation, deference, interdependence, and harmony likely gather along the left. Positioned in this way and hindered by distinct communication pattern differences and a general inability to constructively communicate about values tests campus common ground and the community at large. And, while it is true that political degrees of divisiveness and related expressions of unrest are generational, what continues to be uncharted territory is the speed with which a conflict can become a movement as calls to awareness and action drive tipping points and bolster coordinated movements as found in #MeToo and Black Lives Matter.

Who Are the Campus Learners of Today and Tomorrow and What Do They Need? Understanding what we mean by culture, climate, and conflict helps create a shared frame of reference to point us toward the other symbiotic parts that move together in communities composed of distinct learners. Who are our campus learners? Who will they be tomorrow? In what ways are they different and not so different from previous generational cohorts? When it comes to effective conflict engagement, what do they want and need individually, across identity groups, and collectively from higher education? Are we responsive and constructive in the immediate while moving the field forward with strategic efficacy and in ways that align authentically with missions that speak to education, diversity, inclusion, freedom of expression, civility, and productivity? While systemic change in higher education is notoriously slow, the pace of life around us seems to have accelerated. In the United States we see this change of pace when children as young as 2 and 3 years of age are introduced into structured educational programs. Full day preschool and kindergarten with priorities in traditional learning over doing are increasingly in demand. Students are groomed into competitive sports early over intramural play. The differently competitive college admissions process is on the radars of students as young as elementary and middle school. High school students across generations share common experiences; they hold jobs, flirt with intimacy, suffer heartbreak, act impulsively, and experience the premature social lubrication of alcohol and other drugs. Developmental milestones do not change that

22 responding to conflict on campus    much over time. What is different for digital natives who have never known a world without high-speed internet is amplified access and exposure. Young people have easy access to everyone and everything anywhere and leave a digital record that will never be erased. Understanding students requires accounting for how significant it is to transform the modality of communication together with the unintended consequences of life modulated online. Being of a certain age requires that we check our own adult nostalgia. Neither must we pass judgment or cast our fear of the unknown onto the next generation as we face the realization that we have handed over a free and fully accessible digital marketplace to our children. Students are already reportedly fearful and stressed, and in record numbers. Like generations of the past, students are clearing developmental milestones in step to the world around them. Responsiveness and constructive change to meet their needs in this context requires informed and inclusive strategy and vision over acting on the impulse of fear and aversion to risk. Inclusive excellence in turn demands that we know who makes up our community of learners both individually and generally and how we might best deliver on the promises made by higher education, while growing our collective professional capacity to build relationships and administer just and trustworthy resolution processes across informal to formal options. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) has collected longitudinal educational data for nearly 40 years, and the ninth edition of Knocking on the College Door (2016) includes updated trends and projections across data points about public and private school graduates who make up the pool of potential future campus learners. Understanding the student population of tomorrow informs strategic planning today. Those plans must be cohesive with the institutional culture and mission to best position colleges and universities to attract and retain diverse learners. The plan must also rest on principles designed to disrupt bias and inequity. For educators and practitioners responsible for daily student interface on behalf of the institution, particularly in student conduct and conflict management, the numbers also inform organic applications with the lived experiences of every student. In short, having the big picture invites us to look further ahead of ourselves than the next meeting, crisis, and student break so that we might pause to breathe, look up, look around, and use what we know to move forward in more meaningful ways. Students deserve and demand responsive sustained efforts that yield constructive outcomes while mitigating negligence that feeds destructive and ineffective cycles of conflict and conduct on campus. Breaking harmful and ineffective patterns to set us on a more constructive path begins by knowing who our students are and who they will be into the future.

transforming the climate and culture  

23

U.S. research (inclusive of U.S. island territories of Guam and Puerto Rico for the first time) that spans the 2000 to 2023 academic years yields several generalized observations and forecasts (WICHE, 2016). Overall high school graduating classes have plateaued and are heading toward stagnation. This means that high schools will continue to produce fewer graduates than the year before. Regionally, the South and West will enjoy growing numbers of high school graduates while the Midwest and Northeast will see declining numbers. Moreover, the racial and ethnic makeup of public high school graduates as a pool of potential college applicants will shift significantly through 2030. Most notably, White public high school graduates will drop by as much as 13% while Hispanic public high school graduates are projected to increase a full 50% by 2025. Asian/Pacific Islander public high school graduates are anticipated to increase by 30% in a similar period while the number of Black graduates will gradually be reduced through the 2030s by about 6%. American Indian/Alaska Native graduates already making up just 1% of high school graduates will continue to decline to the thousands (WICHE, 2016). In short, the pending national plateau is largely fueled by a decline in the White student population and counterbalanced by growth in the number of nonWhite public-school graduates—Hispanics and Asian/Pacific Islanders in particular. Overall, there will be consistent declines in the number of White public high school graduates and robust growth in the number of public high school graduates of color (or, technically speaking, “non-White” graduates) in the coming years. (p. 1)

Demographic shifts show up in other significant ways and across other meaningful analytic outlets. According to the Lumina Foundation (n.d.), a full 46% of students identify as first-generation college goers. As these numbers rise, majority White male college numbers decline. The U.S. Department of Education (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016) estimates that by 2026, 57% of college students will be female. Adding to this shifting landscape is the continual increase in the number of college students who identify across gender and sexual orientations as LGBTQ+. According to a 2017 study sponsored by GLAAD (2019) (formerly the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), 20% of 18- to 34-year-olds openly identify as LGBTQ+ as compared to 12% of Gen Xers and 7% of baby boomers. Students who are supported in K–12 environments to achieve a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) have increased access to college. This approach is not only beneficial but also required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

24 responding to conflict on campus    (IDEA) for children identified with special educational needs across disability and gifted measures. Individualized education programs (IEP) and 504 plans address achieving FAPE in LRE in the K–12 context. Physical campus adaptations that removed barriers for increased enrollment by students with mobility challenges in the 1990s are now coming of age as legal and ethical obligations for universal design for accessibility of digital learning materials including content, online delivery systems, and technologies (Tobin & Behling, 2018). Additional data on international student enrollments shows notable declines after several decades of steady gains (Redden, 2018). Grawe (2019) notes that enrollment dips since 2016 approach 10% and identifies factors that include political environment surrounding immigration, tighter student visa restrictions, and competition from other countries. While all these factors have an impact on college diversity numbers and campuses are said to be increasingly diversified, the students coming to campus are hailing from very homogenous neighborhoods and their first experience with engaging in abundant diversity may very well be freshmen orientation. K–12 educational communities remain remarkably segregated (Eberhardt, 2019). The current and future implications of incoming students with limited intercultural engagement experience for campus conflict management remain significant. Inside Higher Ed (2019), in collaboration with Academic Partnerships, identifies additional demographic projections of significance for the next decade While public and private high school numbers are projected to decline with some regional differences of note, U.S. colleges and universities still enroll over 20 million students, compared to 12 million in 1980, for reasons that include the addition of “graduate and professional programs, part-time and online degrees to traditional undergraduate programs” (Inside Higher Ed., 2019, para. 3). Findings suggest that higher education is no longer stratified meaningfully along “traditional and nontraditional” students as campuses today cater increasingly to working adults, international students, and lifelong learners. In sum, forecasted change across student demographics presents the need for changing service models to support and be responsive to a new generation of learners. The nature of the relationship is further changing. Student learners and the families that may financially support them are also consumers and clients akin as much to a business model as one of education and development. In addition to providing diverse and responsive opportunities for student education and development on the way to goals of professional satisfaction and sustainable pay, higher education is a money-making

transforming the climate and culture  

25

industry. Tuition dollars drive about half of the public institution revenues (Woodhouse, 2015). And as the cost of college climbs, and student debt is at a critical high, the satisfaction and trust of educational consumers, including students and their families, wavers. This changing public perception of higher education further shapes the incoming student body, college experience, and overall climate of college life. Families are struggling with questions about how to fund the years needed to earn a marketable degree. While funding for higher education and reducing the student loan debt crisis continues to be a point of contention across U.S. political platforms, as many as half of Americans are said to be unsatisfied with the whole enterprise based in large part on perceived return on investment. Trade schools in turn are receiving renewed attention as a ­postsecondary opportunity, as is the potential to earn high pay for hands-on work previously discounted by those on the track to college. It is also important to consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated economic fallout on higher eduction.

Demographic-Driven Tensions When students are cast as both a human resource and a profitable commodity, recruitment and retention become both economic and educational imperatives. Exploiting this imperative includes treating higher education like a political hot potato by U.S. presidential candidates, while wealthy parents including actors Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin face sanctions after being investigated as part of Operation Varsity Blues for conspiring to pay for the privilege of a competitive admissions advantage for their children. This human resource/hot commodity tension in higher education impacts the changing climate and culture of campus communities, particularly around conflict management and behavioral accountability policies. How we anticipate and respond to this and other tensions shines light on our working commitment to the comprehensive, critical lens of inclusive excellence as educators, practitioners, and leaders in the field. Perceptions also reflect a polarized United States as middle ground yields right or left across conservative and progressive values. In this climate, institutional missions and innovative action items meant to further goals of diversity and inclusion and to support underserved students are being challenged, and socially progressive legislation is being rolled back. Bias response initiatives have been tested against the right to freedom of expression. The push for transparent sexual misconduct reporting mandates and meaningful

26 responding to conflict on campus    protocol has run afoul of critics who question data suggesting sexual assault is a campus epidemic, and fear the needs of complainants are eroding the due process rights of respondents. Social justice curriculums are misconstrued to have a liberal agenda. At the same time, the nation and many parts of our shared world grow more polarized, creating the conditions for intense conflict and escalating violence. Tension on campus reflects our shared national and global community and is expressed across several seemingly conflicting positions. Elements of conflict in the following list include interdependent parties, seemingly incompatible goals, and perceived scarce resources (Wilmot & Hocker, 2001). 1. Human resource versus hot commodity: What do we believe and how do we navigate in a field where students are both human resources in development, entrusted to our care, and sought-after consumers of big-ticket education? And how do we navigate all the coincidental costs of housing, texts, activities, meals, and general merchandise in a competitive marketplace with declining numbers? How does this friction framed as capitalism and socialism show up today and what are the related costs? 2. Care management versus risk management: Informal care reports, bias incident notifications, and formal allegation numbers are skyrocketing according to anecdotal reports by national colleagues across our campus communities; this is a “see something, say something” culture that promotes mandatory reporting and third-party evaluation and action (and record-keeping), often over direct and constructive interpersonal intervention. What are the unintended consequences of a good intention gone awry in terms of striking a balance between individual rights and community interests, trust, interpersonal relationships, constructive empowerment, conflict resolution, multicultural capacity-building, overall student development, and staff burnout and expendability? 3. Equity versus privilege: Campuses are organic microcosms interconnected with the climate and culture of the world at large. They are also generational incubators for the exchange of new ideas; freedom of expression; innovative change; civic engagement; and the transfer of shared knowledge, traditions, and norms to future leaders, doers, and scholars. How do we reconcile the tension created by a legacy of higher education rooted in explicit bigotry, initially offering the privilege of access primarily to White, cisgender, straight, male–identified students of financial means? How do we repair a flawed institutional

transforming the climate and culture  

27

foundation complicit in perpetuating power centers and pushing to the margins all other social identity groups? How do we account for a corrupt history of racial segregation that includes communities actively fighting to keep Black and White children apart and expelling students of color without due process or rationale for the transgression of sitting at a “Whites Only” counter? How do we move forward together in communities where vestiges of privilege and hierarchy and demands for equity and a democratic process systemically coexist? 4. Inclusion versus exclusion: Higher education might be said to be more inclusive and accessible than ever before. Targeted grants, outreach, and support for underserved up-and-coming scholars has grown, extended and nonconsecutive lifelong learning is overtaking the four-years-and-done paradigm, and community colleges and online degree-bearing platforms have brought learning to the learner. Students of color and those who identify as female, transgender, and non-gender binary have further tipped the enrollment scale away from majority White, male-identified students of the past and into the foreseeable future. How are these gains being tested in a polarized country wrestling across this inclusion/exclusion dichotomy at our borders and through immigration policy and in our polling places, gerrymandering, and election processes? How do belief systems about the value of individual merit versus the law of averages in who we let in and keep out serve or compromise inclusive missions? Does a resurgent push across the globe for building barriers and boundaries and increased us/them nationalism threaten to undo active globalism practices and the existential need for biodiversity? How do weapons of mass destruction rights and the eco-crisis alarm stand to impact future generations regardless of where we call home? How have these new realities introduced a sense of vulnerability and mortality into what is often perceived as the happiest time of a young person’s life? 5. Learning and restoration versus control and retribution: Higher education and student life programs are in an unenviable position. What do we fundamentally believe about students as human resources and profitable commodities and the nature of balancing care and risk, equity and privilege, inclusion and exclusion in real time as we engage them in the learning and development we promise to deliver on when they buy into our institutional brand? Are colleges and universities in the business of building inclusive capacity for student development and education and culturally sensitive community responsiveness and

28   

responding to conflict on campus

r­estoration? If so, why do institutionalized systems, both new and dated, operate from an orientation to justice as control and punishment and act in ways that often prioritize risk management over individual care in real and perceived ways? Is it enough to mitigate structurally punitive conduct practices and record retention that carries the ultimate risk of community exclusion and may compromise graduate and career aspirations with amnesty, sanctioned educational reflection papers, and developmental protocol for informal adjudication? If risk-averse control is the antithesis of inclusive learning, what do we do?

Campus Response Systems and Inclusive Conflict Excellence Taken all together, the developmental milestones of each generation are modulated by the existing climate and culture while navigating the path to adulthood through a world in a state of flux. The heightened and persistent state of alarm, escalated conflict, aggressiveness, and global uncertainty fueled by unlimited online access has taken its toll and is changing how students show up in our offices to engage conflict, conduct, and crises. The nature of change itself has not strayed from cycles of forming, storming, norming, and performing, as first introduced in the 1960s by psychologist Bruce Tuckman (1996). Conflict is a natural prompt and companion of change, and constructive conflict engagement is necessary for innovation. Still, this cycle is witnessed differently than ever before. Stress and trauma can be exacerbated through firsthand and secondhand proximity to reports of bias and hate crimes, bystander videos, and violence in the world around us. As we continue to navigate the unintended consequences of unfiltered 24/7 reporting, students are not only “woke” to injustice differently than a generation ago but also showing related signs of anxiety and depression in record numbers. This generation, connected as they are, may be more exposed to injustice and inclined to activism; still, they are no less susceptible to battle fatigue and hopelessness than anyone else navigating a toxic climate and uncertain future. Added to this mix are new cultural norms. Changing definitions of consent, sexuality, gender, masculinity, and cultural appropriation test our shared common frames of reference, invite missteps, prompt backlash, and make impactful and just responses to harm ever more challenging. Consider several cases in point. The first involves changing norms related to how we define sexual misconduct. In this new landscape, young people today might well identify their first sexual experience in ways that align with an evolving

transforming the climate and culture  

29

understanding of coercion and sexual assault. A generation ago the same experience was set to the musical duet of “Baby It’s Cold Outside.” New lyrics of the perennial favorite have since been introduced that recognize the role of coercion and incapacitation in sexual misconduct. As Maya Angelou is known to have observed “When we know better, we do better.” If only that were reliably true, particularly when it comes to extending basic agency and respect across identities. Take Black Face as another cultural case in point. Donning Black Face paint has always been demeaning and destructive. Still, old photos periodically surface popular White leaders and entertainers who once thought it appropriate to include Black Face as a costume. Sensational headlines, prompted by student-related conduct and conflict that travels with shifting awareness, indicate a new tipping point for cultural norms, and greater multicultural capacity and IQ places institutional response under the microscope. What we see magnified under the glass is conflict and conduct management systems under duress and often ill-equipped to meet and keep up with a changing demand. Turning an inclusive lens on the culture, climate, and context of the student experience of today and into the future lends itself to innovation, change, and the ability to manage many truths and lived experiences at the same time. Considering the current and anticipated future context and campus climate and seeing our students and our work through the lens of inclusive conflict excellence we begin to see the broad needs on campus, and the call to calibrate an expanded menu of integrated conflict management is crucial. The spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) approach is more relevant than ever as it offers multiple pathways for adaptable conflict management to address the multitude of complex incidents occurring in higher education today. We bring concepts of community, climate, and culture to the fore in order to move with integrity into impactful theory to practice applications of the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008). Expanding a range of options to resolve and manage student conduct and conflict that align across a foundation of restorative and social justice is a systemic and capacitybuilding goal. Enhancing procedural justice to include social, restorative, and transformative justice lenses brings purpose into alignment in ways that reconcile a changing campus demographic. Framing all through the lens of inclusive conflict excellence has the added capacity to lift us from the legacy of education as exclusive and to fully appreciate that improving diversity, equity, and inclusion is fundamental to achieving overall institutional excellence.

30   

responding to conflict on campus

The premise and promise of a fuller spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) approach with multiple resolution pathways includes the belief that every person counts and each perspective matters. If we believe this, then it is necessary to link conflict resolution with values and practices that support procedural justice obligations while also embracing social, restorative, and transformative justice. Inclusive conflict management is justice in action; justice shapes peace. The paradox of recognizing inclusion as the intersection of legal compliance, competitive advantage, and the moral right thing to do makes this work so challenging and compelling.

Aligning Multiple Lenses With Inclusive Conflict Excellence Inclusive conflict excellence brings together in a shared frame the social, restorative, transformative, and procedural justice “lenses” necessary for effective conflict and conduct management. A myopic focus through any one of these lenses blurs perspective. Institutions and their people lose their way and are left with less-than-ideal conduct and conflict outcomes when practices and policies are out of alignment with the purpose and aims of the educational mission. Focusing student conflict and conduct practices is purposeful work. Unless we tailor codes, policies, and processes and lead the field with a shared and inclusive purpose, we will continue to drift until someone, or some new case, shifts our focus. The Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) asserts inclusive excellence as their guiding principle to challenge higher education to recognize diversity, equity, and inclusion as mission-critical to “achieve excellence in learning, teaching, student development, institutional functioning, and engagement in local and global communities” (AAC&U, n.d., para. 2). The principle asserts that institutions will never reach full potential until they adapt and evolve to include the full array of voices of all communities on campus. AAC&U challenges our profession to recognize that “the action of making excellence inclusive requires that we uncover inequities in student success, identify effective educational practices, and build such practices organically for sustained institutional change” (para. 3). Making conflict and conduct management inclusive means seeing the work through not only the traditional procedural justice (and risk-­ management) paradigm but also the lenses of social, restorative, and transformative justice. Figure 1.1 illustrates concepts framed on inclusive conflict excellence intersecting with justice lenses. The following lenses are examined in depth in the chapters that follow.

transforming the climate and culture  

Figure 1.1.  The lenses of inclusive conflict excellence. Diversity Belonging Truth Inclusion Access

Social justice

Oppression Bias Identity Power Privilege

Transformation Development Education

Due process Risk Rights

Transformative justice

Inclusive Conflict Excellence

Procedural justice

Agency Learning Change Accountability

Safety Fairness Equity Free speech Collaboration Healing Repair Rehabilitation

Restorative justice

Community Harm Trust Reconciliation

Note. Developed by N. Giacomini and J. Schrage with M. Thompson.

Social justice: The lens of social justice is enhanced and not diminished or replaced as we center inclusive conflict excellence. Here, we make a collaborative and sustained investment in the foundational and evolving theories and models that inform how we understand identity and identity expression and their impact on individuals and community as they experience belonging. We continue to assert that accounting for power, privilege, and oppression dynamics is critical to effective conduct and conflict management process. When we do this we can strategically and responsively build more inclusive and equitable individual and systemic access to justice. Procedural justice: Here, we attend to meaningful due process protections relevant to systems of education and the unique relationships among learner and institution, individual rights, institutional compliance, and risk management; these priorities must be interpreted in ways that honor core values such as safety, fairness, equity, and free speech. Restorative justice: This lens enhances an investment in civility and community development. It embodies truth, accountability,

31

32   

responding to conflict on campus

atonement, and reconciliation in instances both trending and historic that call on us to repair harm and rebuild trust in order to move forward together. Through this lens, solutions are authored by the voices of those affected by the conflict (including responsible and targeted parties and impacted bystanders) rather than solely by the institution. Transformative justice: In our search for applied justice in ways that mitigate exploitation or discourage a default to systems that perpetuate privilege and oppression, we find calls for transformation and transformative justice. Transformation is the living embodiment of education, student learning, and development over punishment and control, where people are equitably empowered and given agency to shape and inform their own resolutions and responses to conflict, conduct, and the companion process of change. The lenses of this model assert a holistic commitment to student learning and development across identities, equally value the collaborative necessity of tending to both results and relationships, and demonstrate a multipartial ethic of care with the capacity to notice and account for bias in our relationships and systems. Taken together, they actively work against bias, exploitation, and carelessness in the name of justice, inclusion, and excellence. Nurturing a collaborative vision through lenses that support inclusive conflict excellence are responsive to the well-being of a shared community and institutional mission while meeting the needs of a diverse and complex community of learners. Applying these lenses to campus incidents of conflict and conduct can further tailor approaches to conflict and conduct resolution in ways that fit the individual culture and climate of each institution. At the close of this chapter, we provide a scorecard for the application of the lenses for stakeholders to consider while furthering inclusive conflict excellence across the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) pathways. In short, inclusive conflict excellence centered with justice honors the purpose of student conduct and conflict practice. Each is interconnected, and together they honor and value the purpose of student development and education across identities.

Conclusion In 2017, AAC&U, with support from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and Newman’s Own Foundation, launched the Truth, Racial Healing &

transforming the climate and culture  

33

Transformation (TRHT) Campus Centers. AAC&U distributed initial grants to 10 college campuses, and the effort focused on increasing the capacity of the next generation of leaders to build equitable communities by dismantling the false belief in a hierarchy of human value that fuels systemic and structural racism. The number of TRHT Campus Centers now includes partnerships with 25 higher education institutions. The effort intentionally distinguished the TRHT acronym from associated traditional and visible conflict resolution processes: Across the world, truth and reconciliation commissions are well known, having been implemented more than forty times. But TRHT is focusing less on reconciliation and much more on healing and transformation. To reconcile connotes the restoration of friendly relations—“reuniting” or “bringing together again” after conflict. But the United States needs transformation. The collective national consciousness was formed by belief in racial hierarchy, a belief that has dominated the educational, economic, social, and legal discourse for centuries. (Christopher, 2016, para. 23)

Our advocacy for inclusive conflict excellence in higher education makes a similar case for transformation and truth-telling about higher education. It invites shifting the paradigm away from a retributive, punitive model of campus justice that carries the threat of exclusion and is the antithesis of inclusive excellence. Adding reflection papers and educational sanctions if coincidental to a standardized sanction rubric misses the point. Transforming higher education demands leadership and a comprehensive tested strategic approach that centers inclusion in ways that are fully responsive to a changing campus demographic and an always shifting cultural landscape. Foundations and structures that do not support inclusive excellence and justice must come down, symbolically and literally, to clear the way for a sustainable future of inclusive excellence. Demands for transforming systems rather than building on top of faulty ones also aligns with calls for criminal justice reform and racial reparation to account for a harmful racist American legacy because we cannot move forward together as a diverse and united nation until we understand our shared past. The removal of historic confederate statues through agreement or force and renaming structures to untangle from a troubling legacy are campusbased examples. Cries for renaming popular national and collegiate sports teams is another. These considerations express the value of inclusive conflict excellence and across the lenses of justice. This balance of lenses honors the critical civil rights activism of six Black Alabama State University students acting in concert with other Black

34 responding to conflict on campus    students across the south. Their actions and subsequent college expulsion paved the way to procedural justice in student conduct practice long before the present generation of students was born. In the landmark decision of Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961) the court held that the college violated the rights of these students when it expelled them without notice, a hearing, or a rationale for the action. The students were simply cast out for participating in civil rights demonstrations, including the peaceful expression of civil disobedience when they refused to be turned away from a Whites-only lunch counter. We name this landmark case and honor the contributions of these students to remind us that higher education practice is the work of human rights, inclusive justice, and equity. What we do today connects us to the legacy of six students of color (together with less storied activists and allies) who refused to give up their seats at a “Whites Only” counter. The deep roots and educational heritage of privilege, injustice, and inequity must keep us humble and ever vigilant as allies and educators. The contributions in this second edition of Reframing Campus Conflict remain relevant because the work of inclusive excellence and social justice in the present day and into the future is not done. Mighty change is incremental, and it must be sustained over time to move communities forward. As Cloke and Goldsmith (2011) assert in the butterfly effect as borrowed from physics, “Every tiny effort at [constructive] resolution ripples outward to produce a subtle, yet cumulatively positive effect on a local level in our families and workplaces, and on a global scale in the cultures and attitudes of people toward their conflicts and the resolution process” (p. 8). In this way, our anniversary edition is both a celebration of small steps toward change and a renewed call to act and make a difference. When the task seems too great, and the days too long, we take heart in remembering the impact of students and their allies who dare to stir change by claiming their right to belong, to be safe, to be respected, and to have a voice in the dialogue of justice and change.

Summary This chapter introduces context for the theory to practice ideas presented in the remainder of this publication. With an understanding of the landscape, shifting demographics, and diverse needs of incoming students, the importance of the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) approach to conflict and conduct management as a viable and relevant solution to current campus issues is made clear. This chapter also introduces the term

transforming the climate and culture  

35

inclusive conflict excellence as a concept to illustrate the importance of balancing restorative, social, transformative, and procedural justice considerations in responding to conflict on today’s campuses.

Questions for Reflection and Dialogue Climate surveys are common and necessary on today’s campuses. Here, we suggest conducting an informal assessment to get a read on how your institutional student conduct program attracts and serves students fairly while facilitating an inclusive mission of learning and development for every student. 1. Review the statistical breakdown of the student population on your campus based on social group identities. Next, compare the numbers of disciplinary cases for the past semester or quarter based on the type of incident, severity of sanction, and social identity of the student alleged to have violated policy. Look too at those seeking services as a complainant in such cases. What do the statistics suggest to you? Is there a student identity overrepresented or underrepresented as compared to the general campus population? Who is using your services, and who is not? Where do service gaps exist? 2. Consider reports and complaints of alleged sexual misconduct or harassment. How many complainants and identified harmed ­parties completed a formal resolution process and what happened? How many students, if they had the choice, opted out of pursuing or participating in formal investigation and adjudication processes? 3. How many hate or bias incidents reported on campus this past year went unaddressed based on freedom of expression considerations? 4. Of those cases referred for adjudication, how many might have been better managed and resolved in a less formal conflict resolution process like mediation, conflict coaching, or a restorative conference or circle? For those institutions that have systemic conflict resolution options, who is accessing them and who is not? Why? 5. Consider the visible diversity represented by the first three people a student with an issue will meet as they enter the office. What might be the initial impact of that first impression, particularly for a student who feels apprehensive, underrepresented, defensive, or harmed in some way?

36   

responding to conflict on campus

6. Assess the training received by staff and students responsible for some aspect of the conduct program. How much experiential time and resources are spent addressing bias and building multicultural capacity beyond “diversity awareness”? Does your campus include training and dialogue related to campus, regional, and national demographic and campus climate trends? 7. Work through a policy change initiative or conflict/conduct-related case study (real or imagined) with your team using the Inclusive Conflict Excellence Decision Matrix presented in the next section. Later, you might apply the matrix across spectrum pathways introduced in Part Two of this book to test for the appropriateness of each process option related to individual cases.

Inclusive Conflict Excellence Decision Matrix Exercise The Inclusive Conflict Excellence Decision Matrix (Table 1.1) is useful as a dialogue and decision-making tool to help institutions process cases, conduct system reviews, and facilitate dialogue around policy initiatives. To use the decision matrix, review the left-hand column that lists potential resolution pathways. Pathways are arranged from least to most formal. Scores that range from a 5 (fully align) to a 1 (extreme deficit) are determined by viewing individual pathways across each lens to ascertain how fully you feel the pathway fits each lens. Record that score in the box that intersects for each pathway and lens. Once the matrix is complete, tally each line in the far right column. The higher the final score, the more fully aligned the interest may be considered as an approach that honors each lens and achieves inclusive conflict excellence. Lower overall matrix scores indicate areas of continued tension and create opportunities to search for “third truths” in reconciling conflicting interests. A useful prompt across the matrix might be: “When considering this incident, how fully does this pathway support and represent the ideals found within this individual lens?” Repeat for each pathway and each lens. An example of a complete decision matrix is shown in Table 1.2. Case pathway example: You are the dean of students at your college. Reports show that cases of COVID-19 are on the rise. Your city begins to realize that cases of COVID-19 are surfacing locally. Within a 48-hour period, the campus leadership determines that it is necessary to move courses online and sends messages to students encouraging them to return home as soon as possible. These messages emphasize the need for social distancing and are reinforced by

transforming the climate and culture  

37

TABLE 1.1

Decision Matrix for Inclusive Conflict Excellence Policy or Pathway Question

Pathway or Policy Option #1

Transformative Social justice justice Access, Agency, inclusion, education, truth, and development, multiand learning partiality Score

Score

Restorative justice Community, healing, reconciliation, and collaboration

Procedural justice Due process, rights, fairness, and risk management

Total

Score

Score

Total

Pathway or Policy Option #2 Add more rows to consider more options Note. Developed by J.M. Schrage

the county health department issuing specific orders for social distancing. In the midst of this shifting landscape, students are slowly coming to terms with the implications of the situation. Despite campus messaging efforts, a fraternity decides to proceed with plans for hosting a large St. Patrick’s Day event (their most popular party of the year). Campus and community stakeholders report the event to the dean of students’ office and ask for immediate action. To inform your decision on next steps, you decide to use the decision matrix as a tool for your staff ’s discussion on how to handle the complaint. Policy example: The 2011 Dear Colleague Letter guided schools to move away from a clear and convincing standard of evidence in favor of a preponderance of evidence standard (more likely than not) to weigh evidence in cases of sexual misconduct. This guidance has since been rolled back and future direction is unclear. Invested stakeholder units from across campus (attorneys, student affairs, Title IX office, etc.) may use the decision matrix to guide a discussion of the ideal standard of evidence option for their campus. They would list each potential option along the left-hand column of the matrix and score across the lenses (see Table 1.2).

TABLE 1.2

2

3

Policy Option #2: “Deference model” in all cases, campus will defer to complainant’s preference and will not pursue an investigation without complainant’s support.

Policy Option #3: “Hybrid model” in all cases, campus will convene an expert review team to balance a reluctant complainant’s requests with an analysis of personal and community need and issue recommendations regarding whether and how to move forward. 4

5

1

4

1

2

Social justice Restorative justice Access, inclusion, Community, healing, truth, and multi- reconciliation, and partiality collaboration

4

2

5

Procedural justice Due process, rights, fairness, and risk management

Note. Developed by J.M. Schrage. Scoring Scale 5 = Fully aligns; 4 = Mostly aligns; 3 = Somewhat aligns; 2 = Does not align; 1 = Extreme deficit

3

Transformative justice Agency, education, development, and learning

Policy Option #1: “Automatic trigger model” In all cases, campus will move forward with an investigation regardless of complainant’s wishes.

Policy question: How should our campus respond to a situation where in the student making an allegation of sexual misconduct does not wish to participate in adjudication or pursue a formal response?

Example Decision Matrix for Inclusive Conflict Excellence

15

10

11

Total

transforming the climate and culture  

39

References Ali, R. (2011, April 4). Dear colleague letter. U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. Association of American Colleges & Universities. (n.d.) Making excellence inclusive. https://aacu.org/making-excellence-inclusive Christopher, G. C. (2016). The time for truth, racial healing & transformation is now. Liberal Education, 102(4). https://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/2016/ fall/christopher Cloke, K., & Goldsmith, J. (2011). Resolving conflicts at work: Ten strategies for everyone on the job (3rd ed). Jossey-Bass. Coleman, P. T. (2014). Intractable Conflict. In P. T. Coleman, M. Deutsch & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (3rd ed.) (pp. 708–744). Jossey-Bass. Davis, F. E. (2019). The little book of race and restorative justice: Black lives, healing, and US social transformation. Good Books/Skyhorse. Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 186 F. Supp. 945 (M.D. Ala. 1961) Eberhardt, J. (2019). Biased: Uncovering the hidden prejudice that shapes what we see, think, and do. Viking. Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE). (2020). Spotlight on speech codes 2020: The state of free speech on our nation’s campuses. https://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/04102305/FIRE-Spotlight-On-SpeechCodes-2020.pdf GLAAD. (2019). Accelerating acceptance. https://www.glaad.org/sites/default/files/ Accelerating%20Acceptance%202019.pdf Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically based marital therapy. Norton. Grawe, N. (2019, July 17). International students and U.S. higher education. https:// econofact.org/international-students-and-u-s-higher-education Inside Higher Ed. (2019). 2019: Higher education at a crossroads. https://www .insidehighered.com/sponsored/2019-higher-education-crossroads Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Doubleday. Hampden-Turner, C. M., & Trompenaars, F. (2000). Building cross-cultural competence: How to create wealth from conflicting values. Yale University Press. Katz, N., & Kovack, L. (2016). Higher education’s current state of alternative dispute resolution services for students. Journal of Conflict Management, 4(1), 5–37. Lumina Foundation. (n.d.). Who is today’s student? https://www.luminafoundation. org/todays-student/index.html Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. Navarro-Castro, L., & Nario-Galace, J. (2010). Peace education: A pathway to a culture of peace (2nd ed.). Center for Peace Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Table 303.70. Total undergraduate fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by attendance status, sex

40   

responding to conflict on campus

of student, and control and level of institution: Selected years, 1970 through 2026. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_303.70.asp Pearman, F., Curran, F., Fisher, B., Gardella, J. (2019). Are achievement gaps related to discipline gaps? Evidence from national data.   AERA Open. https://doi .org/10.1177/2332858419875440 Pillay, V. (2006). Culture: Exploring the river. In M. Lebaron & V. Pillay (Eds.), Conflict across cultures: A unique experience of bridging differences (pp. 25–55). Intercultural Press. Redden, E. (2018, November 13). New international enrollments decline again. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/11/13/new-inter national-student-enrollments-continue-decline-us-universities Rose, T. (2015). The end of average: How to succeed in a world that values sameness. HarperOne. Schrage, J. M., & Thompson, M.C. (2008, June). Using a social justice model for conflict resolution to ensure access for all students. Paper presented at the Donald D. Gehring Academy for Student Conduct Administration, Salt Lake City, UT. Stevenson, B. (2014). Just mercy: A story of justice and redemption. Spiegel & Grau. Stoner, E. N., & Lowery, J. W. (2004). Navigating past the “spirit of insubordination”: A twenty-first century model student conduct code with a model hearing script. Journal of College and University Law, 31(1), 1–77. Strauss, V. (2018, April 22). Racial bias in campus discipline: When will ­universities look in the mirror? Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ answer-sheet/wp/2018/04/22/racial-bias-in-campus-discipline-when-willuniversities-look-in-the-mirror/ Tobin, T. J., & Behling, K. T. (2018). Reach everyone, teach everyone: Universal design for learning in higher education. West Virginia University Press. Tuckman, B.W. (1996). Theories and applications of educational psychology. McGraw Hill. Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. Pub. L. No. 113-4, 127 Stat. 54 W. K. Kellogg Foundation (2016). WKKF leads a broad coalition to launch truth, racial health & transformation process aimed at addressing centuries of racial inequities in the United States. https://www.wkkf.org/news-and-media/article/2016/01/ wkkf-leads-broad-coalition-to-launch-trht Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. (2016). Knocking at the college door: Projections of high school graduates. http://wiche.edu/policy/knocking Williams, D. A., Berger, J. B, & McClendon, S. A. (2005). Toward a model of inclusive excellence and change in postsecondary institutions. Association for American Colleges & Universities. Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2001). Interpersonal conflict (6th ed.). McGrawHill. Woodhouse, K. (2015, April 13). Public college’s revenue shift. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/13/report-shows-public-highereducations-reliance-tuition

2 RECONCILING LEGAL O B L I G AT I O N S W I T H E D U C AT I O N G O A L S Revisiting Foundations of Student Conflict Work Simone Himbeault Taylor and Donica Thomas Varner Learning is a complex, holistic, multicentric activity that occurs throughout and across the college experience. Student development and the adaptation of learning to students’ lives and needs, are fundamental parts of engaged learning and liberal education. Learning, development and identity formation can no longer be considered as separate from each other; they are interactive and shape each other as they evolve. —American College Personnel Administrators (ACPA) & NASPA–Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education (2004, p. 8)

Introduction In this chapter, we explore how a commitment to legal compliance or risk reduction is not at odds but rather aligns well with an educationally driven approach to student conflict resolution and student conduct management work. By centering student learning as both the process and product of student conduct resolution we create opportunities to test the limits of the traditional formal adjudication hearing as the preferred model while affirming its value in contributing to a socially just and inclusive campus community. This approach advances students’ holistic learning and is a recurring theme throughout this book. In the area of student conflict resolution and conduct management, higher education institutions are constantly managing their responsibilities to safeguard the community’s well-being and to develop and educate the individual student. Ideally, we meet the individual student’s 41

42 responding to conflict on campus    needs without compromising the health and safety of the community or the institution’s overall responsibilities. Similarly, the institution’s commitment to educating the whole student requires an intentional focus on the student’s academic/professional development as well as the student’s psychosocial development. We are constantly and intentionally engaged in student development and learning endeavors in the ever-expanding extended classroom. The disequilibrium created from student conflicts and student conduct issues, therefore, becomes a natural experiential stage from which educators can direct a student’s personal growth and influence the community’s definition of justice and the meaning of a just society. Indeed, since this chapter was first published in 2009 the field has benefited from learning much more about the changes in student preparedness for identity development undertakings, how students grow or learn, and how the national and global contexts inform how we define a just society. Consequently, ACPA’s and NASPA’s foundational work in 2004 on Learning Reconsidered remains highly relevant to higher education’s work in preparing students to be complete individuals who are meaningful contributors to a just society, as advanced by Keeling and Hersh (2011): We have come to count on higher education for a more subtle, idiosyncratic, and even mysterious process of development and growth in students, something that transcends the acquisition of greater earning power and long-term increase in wealth potential: the intellectual, personal, and social emergence of a complete, adult human being. . . . None of the conditions of college—personal and intellectual challenge, exposure to new ideas, interactions with people who are different, the opportunity to experience new freedom and test old boundaries—are intended to leave students inert and unaffected. (p. 6)

Historically, the response to student conflict and misconduct is rooted in legal theories designed to determine a student’s guilt or innocence through a traditional hearing model. The revised model student conduct code offered by Stoner and Lowery (2004) deemphasized legalistic language and judicial constructs modeled after the courts (e.g., guilt versus innocence), yet the code’s fundamental purpose remained to provide a standard corrective or disciplinary response to guilty behavior. Updated model codes honor the principles established by earlier efforts and introduce elements acknowledging a greater educational and social justice orientation (TNG, 2013). However, punishment may not produce individual accountability. The hearing binary with a winner and loser may not permit a multipartial approach to complex interpersonal conflicts between students or between students and the community. Nevertheless, this rubric ensures that students are not deprived of

reconciling legal obligations  

43

fundamental rights without due process, students are treated similarly for similar misconduct, the institution’s compelling interest in maintaining a safe and healthy community is satisfied by prompt corrective action, and scarce resources are efficiently managed through the use of a standard disciplinary process. What is still lacking in this risk-reduction model is the conscious d ­ ecision to support individual growth in the areas of moral and ethical decisionmaking, social identity development, cultural competency, and other ­components of psychosocial development theory. In many cases, student learning is an unintended consequence rather than an intentional outcome. In our one-dimensional effort to protect people from disparate treatment, arbitrariness, and capriciousness, there is insufficient latitude to grapple with the complexity of the individual student that an institutional commitment to student learning, diversity, and inclusiveness demands. Similarly, in our isolated effort to minimize liability and risk (e.g., legal exposure, bad publicity, stakeholder backlash), we may simply postpone or even escalate the emergence of more serious problems by placing narrow policy standards over the individual needs and experiences of people. Harwood (2008) describes this dynamic in an article promoting the use of campus threat assessment teams: There are times when an assessment team finds that the subject is simply enraged about being charged administratively with a minor violation of a university rule. The situation then escalates because a campus bureaucrat holds strong and says [they] can’t overlook the subject’s infraction. “Sometimes,” says Martin, “we have to say, Break the rule. Make the exception . . . if that’s what it takes to defuse a volatile situation.” Of course, students also have to know that threats and violence are not the way to resolve such problems. So at the same time that the team may help to address the issue, it also has to address the student’s behavior. (p. 76)

Melding an educationally grounded approach with an institutional riskreduction model creates the opportunity to break out of the false dichotomy of doing the right thing versus doing the thing right. Drawing on theories of moral and ethical development as well as psychosocial development, we offer in this chapter a conceptual framework for accomplishing the essential intraand interpersonal development and community-associated work implicit in student conflict and conduct management. This chapter makes the case for how an informed approach grounded in clarity about educational purpose can result in meaningful student interventions that become the rule, not the exception. These interventions encourage individual ethical development and teach/practice the fundamentals of good citizenship in a diverse society,

44 responding to conflict on campus    and at the same time responsibly manage the legal and risk-management concerns of the university. We argue that the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) approach that facilitates intentionally engaging in student development and learning through conflict resolution pathways, such as facilitated dialogue, restorative justice circles, mediation, and negotiation, supports the institution’s legal compliance and risk-management objectives. This framing also encourages a nimble and evidence-based response to the dynamic ways in which the landscape of higher education continuously shifts as reflected in the changing demographics and character of the student population, current societal issues that impact how students relate to each other and to authority, and new educational delivery models, as examples. When appropriate, the educator is no longer relegated to just being the arbitrator of contested space but also a facilitator of individual development within a shared or newly imagined space. We are mindful that our position is offered within the context of everincreasing attention to issues of student sexual misconduct. The handling of sexual misconduct can be an object lesson and instructive to our understanding of this work. At the same time, such violations represent one, albeit very serious and troubling, of many conflict issues for which students are held accountable for violating community norms and infringing on the rights of others. Within this understanding, the emphasis on student respondent rights and its relationship to due process is perhaps the biggest change and challenge over the past decade. Yet, this challenge should inform rather than overshadow the work of reconciling legal obligations with education goals.

Principles for Grounding Conflict Resolution Work in Student Learning As educators, wise practice will be informed by our understanding of what students are learning (intra- and interpersonal competency and character); where they are learning it (everywhere physically and virtually); how they are learning (concretely, experientially, abstractly); and with whom they are learning (educators, intimate and virtual peers, themselves). With this grounding, we may be more likely to conceive of educational interventions and environments that meet today’s students where they are

reconciling legal obligations  

45

and stretch them toward their best possible selves, a borrowed term suggesting that it is only when individuals have awareness of what options are available for their lives that they can aspire to these futures (Markus & Nurius, 1986). The purpose of this section is to provide the core historic and contemporary foundations of the principles, theory, and research of student learning to ground the work of educators who manage conflict and other higher education professionals who support their work (e.g., attorneys, deans, campus security professionals, health providers, etc.).

What Is Student Learning? The constructs of student learning and student development were at one time regarded as separate. A more sophisticated understanding of learning exists today that accounts for the “complex, holistic, multicentric activity that occurs throughout and across the college experience” (ACPA & NASPA, 2004, p. 8). What learning are we trying to inspire in students, and to what end? Over at least the past 30 years, numerous reports have emerged from leading national higher education associations and governmental agencies articulating desired college outcomes. While the language associated with the aims of higher education might shift over time and across reports, the fundamental purpose that guides higher education remains steady as captured by the Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) VALUE (Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education) rubrics: Knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world, ­including: Through study in the sciences and mathematics, social sciences, humanities, histories, languages, and the arts Focused by engagement with big questions, both contemporary and enduring Intellectual and practical skills, including: Inquiry and analysis Critical and creative thinking Written and oral communication Quantitative literacy Information literacy Teamwork and problem-solving

46   

responding to conflict on campus

Practiced extensively across the curriculum, in the context of progressively more challenging problems, projects, and standards for performance Personal and social responsibility, including: Civic knowledge and engagement—local and global Intercultural knowledge and competence Ethical reasoning and action Foundations and skills for lifelong learning Anchored through active involvement with diverse communities and real-world challenges Integrative and applied learning, including: Synthesis and advanced accomplishment across general and specialized studies Demonstrated through the application of knowledge, skills, and responsibilities to new settings and complex problems. (AAC&U, 2007, p. 3)

One can imagine complementing these with additional outcomes, such as those related to health and wellness, as the relationship among resilience, academic success, and the tools needed to lead a meaningful life continue to be revealed through empirical evidence (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Lipson et al., 2018). Taken together, these learning outcomes capture intellectual and intra- and interpersonal development and integrate that learning toward the moral complexity and skill acquisition required to be a self-authored, socially responsible citizen of the world (Leskes & Miller, 2006; Taylor, 2008). It prepares students to be what Gardner et al. (2001) call “Good Workers,” not a job or career label but, rather, a construct defining someone who has developed both competence and character. That is, “individuals exhibit a sense of autonomy and maturity, while at the same time maintaining a connection to the wider community, to vital traditions of earlier times, and to people and institutions yet to come” (p. 243). Within the context of learning outcomes being grounded in optimal individual development and contribution to the greater good, we argue that student conflict resolution work has the capacity, if done with intentionality, to guide competence and character. Choosing to approach student conflict work with these learning outcomes at the forefront

reconciling legal obligations  

47

is a commitment by student affairs professionals to serve as educators in the higher learning enterprise.

What Fundamental Theories Ground Student Conflict and Conduct Work? “Thin” theor[ies] . . . leave out the unwieldy bulk of human personality and the untidy commingling of real lives filled with dread and aspirations. Philosophers of thin theories treat similar cases similarly, without much regard for moral psychology or the particularity of individual persons. Thin theories are clean and neat. Thick theories require qualifications about the nature of societies and differences among the human animals who live in them. They involve a more complex moral psychology that views human beings as motivated by more—and less—than reason. (Laney, 1990, p. 49)

A theoretical orientation informs how educators influence development along an array of learning outcomes. Being theory grounded informs practice and, employed wisely, elevates perfunctory activities to educationally purposeful interactions. For example, when can community service or a reflective paper transform from a standard sanction into a vehicle for integrative learning for students to better understand themselves and their role in a just society? As educators, intentionality of action informed by knowledge must be the measure for effective work with students. This framing offers an important reference point for the theory to practice application of pathways represented along the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) and developed in Part Two. Theoretical framing must also be considered within the context of generations, such as have been labeled Gen X, Millennial, Gen Z, and beyond. Arnett’s (2014, 2016) theory of emerging adulthood advances research suggesting development that occurs between adolescence and young adulthood. Characteristics unique to generations change; what is enduring is the assurance that no two generations are quite alike. In turn, national and global contexts matter, as they set the tone for expectations for openness, civility, respect, and what it means to behave as a diverse, democratic society that can embrace healthy conflict for the greater good. Educators must be alert to differences, adaptable to needs, and make appropriate adjustments to approaches. As with any educational intervention, students—an everchanging population—must be at the center of their learning. The theories, the model, and the pathways offered here are neither clean nor neat and yet must be considered as we strive to increase our effectiveness with students.

48   

responding to conflict on campus

Current research in the physiology of brain development tells us that the emotion control center of the brain, the amygdala, responds variably to hormones that play a role in influencing and inhibiting behaviors (Zull, 2011). Research also informs that the prefrontal cortex controlling judgment and impulse is one of the last areas to develop and may not reach maturity until one’s mid-20s (Giedd, 2004; Reyna & Farley, 2006). In turn, Gardner’s (2006) theory of multiple intelligences broadens understanding about the diversity of ways in which individuals process information and learn. Thus, there is a compelling link between neuroscience and education that suggests a greater degree of influence for higher education in terms of affecting moral and ethical development in actively maturing young adult students. More recent research on mind-set distinguishes “fixed” from “growth” orientations and their respective influences on learning (Dweck, 2006/2016). In the name of consistency, higher education may be inclined to employ model codes that ostensibly align with the “typical” student. Emerging research, however, grounded in the growing field of the science of the individual, challenges notions of “average” and provides empirical data to advance three principles of individuality. Rose (2016) defines the principles of jaggedness, context, and pathways to assert a paradigm shift away from generalized approaches and toward learning tailored to the individual. Asserting the “end of average” is a powerful game-changing moment for educators and society at large and has clear implications for conflict work. Developmental theories inform us about what students learn and how they make meaning. A substantial cognitive psychology literature base demonstrates the relationship between intellectual and moral development. Cognitive, moral, and ethical development and learning theories help explain how students make meaning and approach experiences. They also explain how making meaning may be influenced and mediated by students’ own unique selves, including social identities and learning styles. While much of the research literature is based on 18- to 22-year-old college ­students, the use of the term student here is intended to include students of all social identities and of all class levels, from entering college to PhD work (Astin, 1993; Kolb, 1981; Terenzini et al., 1996). Most cognitive development theories assert that as students gain cognitive complexity they develop the capacity to shift from an externally driven to an internally driven sense of self and evolve in their moral reasoning and reflective judgment. They more fully integrate from an authority-defined right from wrong to a more nuanced sense of who they are, who they desire to be, and the extent to which there is congruence between their thoughts and their behaviors (Kohlberg, 1976; National Research Council, 2000;

reconciling legal obligations  

49

Perry, 1970). For over 30 years, Baxter Magolda (2001, 2008, 2014) has studied the journey toward self-authorship, a concept first introduced by Kegan (1982) and further advanced with King (Baxter Magolda & King, 2004, 2012). This theory brings together epistemological, intrapersonal, and interpersonal foundations for the development of cognitive maturity, integrated identity, and mature relationships that converge to create effective citizenship. Understanding the relationship between moral development and conduct and conflict work creates a bridge for the work to be used as the vehicle for practicing the individual skills associated with developing what Gardner et al. (2001) coined as competence and character. Psychosocial development literature also informs conflict resolution work as it concerns itself with the what of higher learning. Closely aligned with the learning outcomes discussed earlier, these developmental tasks include mastering knowledge, developing competence, managing emotions, and establishing a sense of self, purpose, and integrity (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). When students abuse substances, argue with their roommates, destroy property, engage in academic fraud, or inappropriately assert themselves with others, they reveal a set of personal work required to better understand the alignment between who they are and who they aspire to be. Psychosocial tasks evolve as students gain the knowledge, awareness, and skills to understand the complexities of their diverse social identities and their relationship to others in a society that bestows different power and privilege to these different identities. This includes but is not limited to social diversity of race, ethnicity, nationality, class, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, gender expression, disability, religion, age, and the intellectual diversity of ideas and their intersectionality. The grasp of the complex intersectionality across multiple identities leads to intercultural understanding, and, per Gardner et al. (2001), to gaining the tools to engage meaningfully in good work. Gaining that grasp requires taking risks to understand oneself more fully and to learn from interactions with others. Milem et al. (2005) argue that this is the critical path to inclusive excellence, which is defined as a focus on student intellectual and social development, purposeful development and utilization of organizational resources to enhance student learning, attention to the cultural differences learners bring to the educational experience, and a welcoming community that engages all of its diversity in the service of student and organizational learning. (p. vi)

50   

responding to conflict on campus

One can see the clear vision line between these tasks or outcomes, the conflict this may create, and the role conflict resolution educators can play. There is a unique opportunity here to help students navigate from safe to brave spaces to engage on issues of diverse differences (Arao & Clemens, 2013). In this respect, conflict resolution work is in the service of a greater goal for individuals and an inclusive, open society (Abes et al., 2007; Aldous Bergerson & Huftalin, 2011; Hardiman & Jackson, 1992; Jones & McEwen, 2000; McCoy & Rodricks, 2015; McIntosh, 1992; Pope, 2000; Schlossberg, 1989; Tatum, 1997/2017; Zúñiga et al., 2007). Current conceptualizations of the student experience advance thick theories, bringing together the wealth of knowledge garnered across multiple theory bases. In her study on the relationship of moral development to enhancing tolerance for diversity, S. Taylor (1998) introduced a model that was a confluence of cognitive and psychosocial development, interactionist theory, sociological theory, and college impact. K. Taylor (2008) introduced a comprehensive model that is a synthesis of multiple theories and models, which themselves derive from multiple perspectives that integrate key constructs from decades of research about college students, including selfauthorship. From her synthesis, she draws a conceptual map to describe the student journey from following external formulas to standing at the crossroads, becoming self-authored, and building an internal foundation. Such an integrated approach allows researchers and practitioners alike to live into the holistic concept of learning by reinforcing the inextricable links between cognitive and psychosocial growth and the role played by environmental/ social influences to foster and/or impede this growth. A well-documented component for fostering growth is the presence of disequilibrium or “crisis” that causes students, with the appropriate balance of “challenge and support” to confront previous assumptions about themselves, their external influences, and their micro and meta relationships in society (Erikson, 1968; Sanford, 1962). Adapted from K. Taylor’s (2008) depiction of the developmental journey, Table 2.1 aligns some of the types of questions prompted at each stage of development. Student conflict resolution educators can perhaps easily imagine how using this integrated map could inform how one would engage meaningfully with a student presenting with a disequilibrium opportunity, whether addressing drinking behavior, bias allegations, student protests that hover in the gray space of protected free speech and disruption, or allegations of harassment or assault. The student, and the conduct and conflict resolution educator, are offered a teachable moment. Consistently, that teachable moment is in service of encouraging individual competence and character and in building these qualities to enhance one’s contribution to the greater good without sacrificing safety or public order. For example, in the context of campus speech conflicts, enforcement of

reconciling legal obligations  

51

TABLE 2.1

Questions Associated With the Journey to Internally Defined Identities Following Standing at eternal formulas the crossroads

Becoming self-authored

Building an internal foundation

Cognitive

What authorities say about what I should know

How do I know?

I know because . . .

I know because . . . but I also accept ambiguity

Intrapersonal

What authorities say about what I should be

Who am I?

I am . . .

I am . . . even when environmental forces pressure me to change

Interpersonal

What authorities say about kinds of relationships I should have

What type of relationships do I want to have?

I want relationships that . . .

I want relationships that . . . but negotiate to meet both my needs and others’ needs

Note. Adapted from Figure 1 in Taylor, 2008, p. 219.

conduct rules (external) often reinforces the current student’s nascent views of right versus wrong or personal harm versus collective democratic principles. On the other hand, thick identity development theories focus on developing the student’s agency in understanding and managing their own sense of harm without the need to abandon community values (internal). This teachable moment, however, is optimized when achieved by encouraging students to integrate their learning and knowing across their experiences and lives, per Huber and Hutchings’s (2004) rather comprehensive definition of integrative learning: One of the great challenges in higher education is to foster students’ abilities to integrate their learning across contexts and over time . . . the capacity to connect is central . . . whether focused on discovery and creativity, integrating and interpreting knowledge from disciplines, applying knowledge through real-world engagements . . . [integrative learning that] builds intentional learners . . . and the habits of mind that prepare students to make informed judgments in the conduct of personal, professional, and civic life . . . [leading to] personal liberation and social empowerment. (p. 1)

52   

responding to conflict on campus

We are reminded that integrative learning is one of the Association of American Colleges & Universities’ (AAC&U) rubrics. This meaning-making is grounded in reflective practice, a practice asserted by Dewey’s (1938) pragmatism, Freire’s (1970/1997) dialectic model, and Schön’s (1983) approach, a vital, underutilized skill to prepare students for their journey as lifelong learners and contributors. What better situation than conflict resolution work to engage in reflective practice (Dewey, 1938; Dworkin, 1959; Freire, 1970/1997; Peet et al., 2011; Schön, 1983; Taylor, 2011)?

Where Do Students Learn? Students are learning to negotiate complex relationships, including the one they have with themselves. Moreover, they are learning to be good citizens and leaders in a democratic society and global community. Boyer (1990) tells us there are six principles of community: educationally purposeful, open, just, disciplined, caring, and celebrative. In total, students have a 24-hour-a-day job mastering content; learning sophisticated critical thinking skills; establishing a moral compass; and developing the knowledge, skills, and awareness associated with being a responsible member of their community. Those 24 hours are spent in the classroom, in cocurricular activities, at work and at study, and in their living environments. In any of these tangible settings, students increasingly engage within a more amorphous cyber-community via social media (Gardner & Davis, 2013). These are 24 hours of potential time to “become habituated to a vision of the good society by inhabiting a good community of scholars” (Laney, 1990, p. 59), 24 hours making wise decisions and at times employing poor judgment, sometimes simultaneously. In keeping with Taylor’s (2008) model, we can imagine students negotiating an array of internal and external conflicts as they journey from socially prescribed to internally driven modes of being. Representative conflicts are illustrated in Table 2.2 and Table 2.3.

How Can Students Be at the Center of Their Own Learning? With Whom Are They Learning? What is the best way for students to learn how to negotiate these untested and uncertain territories? Advocates of active student learning propose placing students at the center of their own learning (Baxter Magolda, 1999; Kuh et al., 2005; Mayhew et al., 2016). Astin (1993) says this requires physical and psychological energy directed at a learning task. When learning occurs at the cognitive and affective levels and as a result of active learning through experience and reflection, it is more likely to become truly integrated, as

reconciling legal obligations  

53

TABLE 2.2

Examples of Negotiating Internal Conflicts Presenting concern

Internal conflict

Choosing major and career

How do I reconcile choosing what my parents have selected for me with following my passion?

Determining one’s value system in a competitive environment

To what degree, if any, will I compromise my value system to ensure I advance well? To what extent can I—do well if/when I—do good?

Reconciling multiple social identities and related privilege and subjugation

Will I acknowledge and live my life as a White, gay male?

Determining one’s personal identity

Who am I? Why do I believe what I believe?

Engaging in intimate relationships

How do I negotiate adult intimate relationships with confidence and authenticity?

Affirming deeply held spiritual beliefs or religious practices in a pluralistic society

How do I express my spiritual beliefs and religious practices in diverse spaces? How do I resolve apparent or actual conflicts between doctrine and notions of inclusive and just communities? TABLE 2.3

Examples of Negotiating External Conflicts Presenting concern

External conflict

Roommate conflict

How can I reconcile differences with someone so different from myself?

Romantic and/or sexual relationship

How can I understand the appropriate boundaries with a potential partner?

Adhering to rules, regulations, and laws set by society and the institution

How can I decide when I can assert my own will and when I need to follow external principles, norms, and directives?

Hazing

How do I reconcile my desire to engage in traditional bonding activities with my peers with my responsibility not to harm myself or others?

Cyberbullying

How does my participation in social media affect others or community?

Culture wars

How do I acknowledge the rights of others that conflict with my sense of self or need for selfactualization?

54 responding to conflict on campus    Kolb’s (1981) experiential, iterative learning cycle model reflects. This, too, is where generational differences inform the context for learning, as Levine and Dean (2012) describe more recent students as a “generation on a tightrope” (p. 79). They are mindful that yesterday’s students are today’s parents, as they describe parents as helicopters, lawnmowers, and stealth bombers. This engagement occurs within and throughout the extended classroom. Kuh (2008) identifies and categorizes structural learning opportunities designed around engaged learning and calls them high-impact educational practices. Quaye and Harper (2009/2015) complement a structural approach by advancing student engagement tailored to diverse social identities. Kegan (1982) places an emphasis on the learners themselves and advances three principles critical for effective learning, which he says occurs when students bring their own life experiences to their learning, are validated as knowers, and work with educators to mutually construct meaning. The idea of mutually constructing meaning supports Freire’s (1970/1997) concept of educators and students engaging as simultaneous teachers and students in the enterprise of creating knowledge together. It is an empowerment model that represents a recurring motif in the literature for promoting active student learning. Another research supported theme in the college impact literature concerns itself with the influence of role models and peers (Alwin et al., 1991; Keup, 2012; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005). Taken together, educators are led to the conclusion that students learn best what they discover for themselves cognitively, affectively, and experientially (Blimling et al., 1999). This is a compelling case for structuring conduct and conflict work to empower community members to engage educationally and intentionally with students across the expanse of the formal and extended classroom. It is a particularly compelling case for students themselves, whether directly involved or affected by a conflict or incident of misconduct or part of the educational community at large, to play an active role in constructing their own learning and making their own meaning. Because we are reminded that “learning is a complex, holistic, multicentric activity” and that learning and development are not separate entities (ACPA & NASPA, 2004, p. 5), the sight line between learning, conflict, and conduct work is made. While far from exhaustive, foundational constructs informed by decades of research form the basis for engaging in an educational approach to conflict work. Yet, to gain a fuller understanding of conflict resolution and conduct management, legal

reconciling legal obligations  

55

principles must also be fully integrated into the conflict equation. Together with an educational orientation, the balance of individual growth and community accountability may be aligned and actualized. We now turn to legal considerations.

The Role of Law in Student Conflict and Conduct Management Since we first published this work, legal challenges to student conduct management have significantly increased. United Educators (2019), an insurance and risk-management organization representing schools, colleges, and universities throughout the United States, has noted that the largest student-related losses suffered by colleges and universities from 2014 to 2018 resulted from litigation involving speech disputes, hazing, and sexual assaults/Title IX violations. Similarly, legal advocacy groups have emerged to address perceived unfairness and unlawfulness in the administration of student conduct programs through legal challenges primarily targeted at public colleges and universities (e.g., see Speech First; Know Your IX; Families Advocating for Campus Equality, or Students for Concealed Carry). As society’s culture wars are played out on college campuses and institutional financial losses and reputational harm increases, an inevitable consequence is that neat and clean theories become more attractive. Yet, the importance of individual competence and character acquisition demands the intentional and proactive application of thick theories within student conduct and conflict management programs. As noted by Keeling and Hersch (2011), too many of our college graduates are not prepared to think critically and creatively, speak and write cogently and clearly, solve problems, comprehend complex issues, accept responsibility and accountability, take the perspective of others, or meet the expectations of employers. (p. 1)

Understanding the legal principles upon which the traditional judicial approach to student conflict and conduct management are based is necessary to challenge the either-or view that legal compliance is at odds with conflict resolution methods premised in student learning theories. The legal cornerstones of student conduct management are the concepts of due process and nondiscrimination. We are legally compelled through constitutional requirements or contractual obligations to provide students with fundamental fairness before imposing sanctions affecting their continued enrollment. We are

56 responding to conflict on campus    also required to respond to similar misconduct in similar ways, suggesting that fairness requires sameness. As a result, the primary focus from a legal compliance perspective in developing student conflict and conduct management policies is the establishment of clear behavioral standards and resolution procedures that can be applied uniformly to all students. Consistent with this legal framing, all students who set off the fire alarm/sprinkler system in a residence hall are generally subjected to the same disciplinary procedures and set of sanctions regardless of whether subsequent damage or community disruption resulted from the careless use of a microwave, intentional attempted arson, or the burning of paper shoes as an expression of a traditional Chinese death ritual. The impact of the student’s misconduct supersedes the student’s intent. An educationally grounded approach to student conflict and conduct management suggests that student learning theories should inform the institutional process for managing misconduct as well as the institutional response to the misconduct through sanctioning. In this case, the student’s intent supersedes the result of the student’s misconduct. The careless student, the deliberate arsonist, and the culturally conscious student may be at different points in their cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal development. Likewise, each student poses a different risk to the health and safety of the overall community. How then do we meet the individual student at their unique developmental stage without engaging in disparate treatment? How do we move beyond the comfort and ease of a uniform response to student conflict and conduct issues to create a space for individualized intervention and growth for all participants in the conflict? How do we appropriately balance the individual student’s needs and the institution’s interests and fiduciary responsibilities to maintain a healthy and safe community? How do we ensure effective individual accountability for violations of community rules? To answer these questions, we must challenge the premise that fairness requires sameness. Fairness is not about everyone being treated the same, but rather it is about everyone getting what they need. This is a foundational principle of both social justice and inclusive excellence. [Thick theories] do not lend themselves to severing values from facts and making moral decisions on the basis of general empirical induction. They frequently begin . . . with a vision of what is good rather than a vision of what is right, and they speak more about virtue and character and tradition than they do about law and obedience and duty. (Laney, 1990, p. 50)

reconciling legal obligations  

57

When we rely on established student learning and development theories to tailor an appropriate institutional response to student conflict and conduct issues, we can advance the overall academic mission. Similarly, when we invest in the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) approach that provides a full menu of options for meeting the variety of student conflict and conduct issues that arise, we are then able to be truly fair and inclusive.

Due Process The concept of due process stems from federal and state constitutional law. At the core of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Section 1) is the belief that before the government can take away or burden a citizen’s fundamental life, liberty, and property interests, the citizen must be given due process (Goss v. Lopez, 1975). The due process clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution encompasses the idea that an individual’s liberty and property interests are protected by substantive and procedural due process rights (Goss v. Lopez). Over many decades of American jurisprudence, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that substantive due process rights are rooted in the Constitution and represent those individual freedoms that are so necessary to the foundation of the American judicial and political systems that neither liberty nor justice would exist if these rights were abolished. Examples include the right to marry, to have children, to determine the education and raising of one’s children, to marital privacy, to the use of contraception, to bodily integrity and abortion, and to refusal of unwanted lifesaving medical treatment (Palko v. State of Connecticut, 1937; Washington v. Glucksberg, 1997). The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to conclude that continued enrollment in a public college or university is a constitutionally protected interest entitled to substantive due process protections. On two notable occasions, the Supreme Court has considered whether public universities violated the 14th Amendment when dismissing students for unsatisfactory academic performance (Soong v. University of Hawaii at Hilo, 1992). In Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz (1978) the U.S. Supreme Court assumed for the sake of argument that the student was entitled to substantive due process protection and then quickly determined that because there was evidence that the university was careful and deliberate in its decision-making and that the university did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in reaching its conclusion that the student failed to meet the academic standards of the program. In doing so, the court recognized that

58   

responding to conflict on campus

the educational process is not by nature adversary; instead it centers around a continuing relationship between faculty and students, one in which the teacher must occupy many roles—educator, adviser, friend, and at times, parent-substitute. This is especially true as one advances through the varying regimes of the educational system, and the instruction becomes both more individualized and more specialized. (Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 1978, p. 90)

In the other case, Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court assumed that the student had an implied contractual right to continued enrollment but decided there was no evidence the university acted arbitrarily when the record showed that the process was fair, the university acted in good faith, and the university offered good reasons for its dismissal decision. In fact, Justice Lewis F. Powell opined in a concurring opinion that a student’s interest in continued enrollment at a public institution “bears little resemblance to the fundamental interests that previously have been viewed as implicitly protected by the Constitution” (Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing, 1978, pp. 229–230). The duty to make reasoned and rational decisions regarding student conflict and conduct issues is usually viewed as a contractual duty that is created by the educational institution’s conduct policies, handbooks, and codes of conduct, recognizing that it is a “well settled rule that the relations between a student and a private university are a matter of contract” (Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 1961, p. 158). The existence of an implied contract is a matter of state law (Bishop v. Woods, 1976; Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing, 1985). Private institutions may also obligate themselves, through their student handbooks and policies, to be fundamentally fair in the administration of student conduct policies by avoiding arbitrary and capricious actions (Tenerowicz, 2001). While it remains uncertain whether continued enrollment at a public institution is a property interest protected by substantive due process, it has been clearly established that public institutions must comply with the procedural due process requirements of the 14th Amendment before suspending or expelling a student for nonacademic misconduct, holding that “we are confident that precedent as well as a most fundamental constitutional principle support our holding that due process requires notice and some opportunity for hearing before a student at a tax-supported college is expelled for misconduct” (Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 1961, p. 158). The Supreme Court held in Goss v. Lopez (1975) that “at the very minimum, therefore, students facing suspension and the consequent interference with a protected property interest must be given some kind of notice and afforded

reconciling legal obligations  

59

some kind of hearing” (p. 579). The required notice consists of specific information regarding the charges of misconduct and the policies that are alleged to have been violated, so the student can adequately respond to the charges (Goss v. Lopez, 1975). In terms of a “hearing” the Supreme Court has required only that the student be provided with a meaningful opportunity to be heard and tell their version of events, holding that “in being given an opportunity to explain his version of the facts at this discussion, the student first be told what he is accused of doing and what the basis of the accusation is” (p. 582). In fact, the notice and hearing can occur simultaneously and “there need be no delay between the time ‘notice’ is given and the time of the hearing” (p. 583). As such, an informal interview rather than a formal judicial hearing with the right to cross-examine witnesses is sufficient in most situations (Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 1961). In short, procedural due process simply requires fundamental fairness; in addressing student misconduct, public universities should exercise “at least the fundamental principles of fairness by giving the accused students notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard in their own defense” (Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 1961, p. 157) when there are no issues of immediate threat to others. The Supreme Court has also recognized that procedural due process is not a technical rule that should be mechanically applied in all cases (Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy, 1961). On the contrary, the court has consistently held that due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the situation demands (Morrissey v. Brewer, 1972). In fact, in certain emergent circumstances where it is necessary for the state to act quickly, due process may be provided after a temporary suspension has been ordered, holding that “where a State must act quickly, or where it would be impractical to provide pre-deprivation process, post-deprivation process satisfies the requirements of the Due Process Clause [of the 14th Amendment]” (Gilbert v. Homar, 1997, p. 1812). The amount of process depends on the interests affected and the nature of the sanction (Mathews v. Eldridge, 1976). For example, in cases involving punishment for student misconduct, relevant factors include the seriousness of the charge and potential sanctions, the danger of error and the benefit of additional or alternate procedures to minimize erroneous findings, and the burden that would be imposed on the community or public institution if additional procedures were mandated (Ingraham v. Wright, 1977). The idea that schools must provide a formal, adversarial hearing model to satisfy the constitutional requirements of procedural due process in every case has been completely and consistently rejected by federal courts, beginning with the case of Goss v. Lopez (1975), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that formalizing the suspension process and escalating its formality and adversarial nature may not only make it too

60 responding to conflict on campus    costly as a regular disciplinary tool but also destroy its effectiveness as part of the teaching process. (See also Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz [1978] in which the Supreme Court noted that while “[a] school is an academic institution, not a courtroom or administrative hearing room” [p. 583], the type of due process or hearing required may differ for academic versus nonacademic misconduct where the latter may require more traditional judicial or administrative-like fact-finding through a full hearing.) Recent national attention to the resolution of student sexual misconduct cases on college campuses, however, has resulted in judicial, legislative, and regulatory interest in defining the required contours of mandated student disciplinary hearings. Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s consistent recognition of the unique academic mission of higher education institutions, federal courts, state legislatures, and regulatory agencies have opted to enact procedural guidelines that preference outcomes over how students learn and uniformly applied rules over specific learning outcomes. For example, some federal courts have begun to mandate specific due process requirements such as direct cross-examination by students or their advocates in public school disciplinary proceedings when credibility is a determining factor in the outcome (Doe v. Baum, 2018). Likewise, some state legislatures have mandated certain due process protections in formal processes. For example, in 2013, North Carolina became the first state to create a legal right for students enrolled in public colleges and universities “to be represented, at the student’s expense, by a licensed attorney or a non-attorney advocate who may fully participate during any disciplinary procedure” (NC Gen. Stat § 116-40.11, 2012, para. 1) not related to academic dishonesty. While colleges and universities have routinely allowed student conduct participants to be counseled by an adviser of their choice, allowing third parties (especially licensed attorneys) to actively represent students in campus conduct proceedings forces student conduct professionals to continuously reimagine their primary role as an educator engaging directly with students in their learning and development. Therefore, in order to maintain student conduct systems in an educational and developmental manner, it will be incumbent upon institutions to continue to emphasize reasonably uncomplicated and fair processes that asses the student’s impact of their behavior on the learning environment in a nonlegalistic manner. (King & White, n.d., p. 3)

Further, since 1997 when the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education (OCR) issued its first guidance on sexual harassment of students, OCR subsequently issued contradictory guidance on the procedural protections required to enforce the gender equity requirements of Title IX of the Education

reconciling legal obligations  

61

Amendments of 1972 in student conduct proceedings (Federal Register, 2018; U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2017). In summer 2020, OCR released new Title IX rules. The uncertainty that has resulted from a half dozen different sub-­ regulatory and regulatory guidance over the past 2 decades has both challenged institutions’ ability to develop, implement, and assess the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) approach and increased the relevance and need for the model’s push for adaptive solutions for increasingly complex conflict management. Clearly the requirements for fair student conduct process must be guided by applicable laws and regulations. It is also true that a student-centered and fair process must be informed by an understanding of what students are learning, where they are learning it, how they are learning, and with whom.

Nondiscrimination Civil rights laws enacted by federal, state, and local governments in addition to institutional nondiscrimination policies prohibit disparate treatment of students based on their protected status and protect people against rules and practices that disparately impact a group of students based on their membership in a protected classification1 (Kaplin & Lee, 2013). Key to a disparate treatment claim is evidence of an intentional discriminatory motive that is proven by either direct or indirect evidence. Also key to a disparate impact claim is evidence that an otherwise neutral policy or practice disproportionately negatively affects certain protected groups. Therefore, it is understandable that educational institutions prefer a uniform disciplinary process to protect students from the possibility of unbridled discretion, discriminatory animus, bias, or poor judgment on the part of an educator, administrator, or board. The effectiveness of a student conflict and conduct management program can suffer if there is no consistency in the institutional response or outcome. Uniform disciplinary processes and companion educational and conflict resolution responses help to neutralize the impacts of structural privileges and disadvantages that exist within an institution. In addition, uniform disciplinary processes help to ensure that over time and across decentralized institutions, students are treated similarly for similar misconduct. Complying with a standard disciplinary protocol limits the ability of others to influence the institutional response to student misconduct because of the identity of the student participants or the negative consequences for the institution. The more options that are available in a student conflict and conduct management program and the less obvious the desired learning outcomes are, the greater the opportunity for intentional or unintentional discriminatory treatment exists.

62   

responding to conflict on campus

BOX 2.1.

A Case in Point

Consider the case of undergraduate student “Sarah,” who was labeled a threat by a professor who desires her immediate removal from future classes. The professor describes Sarah’s classroom behavior as intimidating, confrontational, and disruptive. According to the professor, Sarah takes over classroom discussions without allowing other students’ voices to be heard and inappropriately challenges authority. This conflict has resulted in a verbal altercation between Sarah and the professor. As a result, some students no longer want to attend class. The professor refuses to teach the class if Sarah remains in it. Before initiating the disciplinary hearing process, the associate dean interviews Sarah and learns that Sarah is an adult in her mid-50s who is returning to school to finish her undergraduate degree. She is an African American woman who appears to be thoughtful and confident. Sarah acknowledges the tension between her and the professor, a White male in his 40s, and explains that she is frustrated at being ignored and marginalized by the professor who she feels never wants to acknowledge her and who disrespects her regularly. Sarah doesn’t see her actions as threatening or disruptive but merely an appropriate effort to engage fully in classroom discussions and to be heard. According to Sarah, the younger students never have anything to say or contribute to the discussion. The scenario introduced in Box 2.1 raises necessary questions about treating everyone the same, without regard to the interplay of intent versus consequence, or individual versus community, or thin theories versus thick theories, can also result in unfair and discriminatory outcomes for individual students. This is so because of the structural biases inherent in all institutions and the primacy of the dominant narratives on each campus. The principle of nondiscrimination does not require the institution to ignore any of these relevant facts in determining an appropriate resolution between the professor and student if the learning outcomes of the institution’s conflict and conduct management programs are clearly established and demand consideration of those factors. For example, in the case provided in Box 2.1, is Sarah an actual threat to herself or others? Does the professor believe he has effective institutional support for classroom management skills? Are the other students interested in or prepared from intergenerational or multiracial learning experiences? Arguably, attending to these factors from a multipartial lens allows a resolution that more accurately responds to the source of the conflict. Establishing desired learning outcomes leads to the creation of conflict resolution and conduct management tools that are informed by congruent

reconciling legal obligations  

63

student learning theories. Inconsistent pursuit of the desired learning outcomes then becomes a test for whether disparate treatment is occurring. Using the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) approach does not forego any of the procedural safeguards provided to students through the formal pathway of adjudication, as long as the pathways are managed by educated, well-developed, and highly skilled professionals capable of tailoring a forum that effectively meets the desired learning outcomes for the individual student and protects them against discriminatory conduct. The conflict resolution and conduct management program that is educationally grounded can comply with the institution’s nondiscrimination obligations under two conditions. First, all the participants must choose to participate in the selected conflict resolution pathway and must do so in good faith. Pathways that empower participants to engage in their own conflict resolution methods only work if the individuals are developmentally capable of meaningful participation and learning. If students benefit from the effective resolution of their issue(s) from the chosen alternative pathway, then they have received what they need from the process and will have been treated fairly. If students choose not to participate in a conflict resolution pathway, then the traditional hearing model should be the default process if a violation is alleged to have occurred. By maintaining the traditional hearing model as part of the overall program menu, students have the same protections against nondiscrimination that have always existed at that institution. Second, student affairs educators must build trust in the administration of the conflict resolution and conduct management program. There must be clarity and transparency in the spectrum model purpose, process, and pathways in order to avoid a perception of disparate treatment that may result when the community experiences differing processes and outcomes. Students must be confident that, regardless of the chosen pathway, they will be provided with a full and fair opportunity to be heard and respected, that they will be safe in the process and not further harmed, that a resolution will be reached in a timely manner, and that the resolution will be effective. The conflict resolution educator or conduct administrator must be sophisticated in understanding student learning theories in general, and ethical development specifically, to appropriately identify the student’s readiness for a transformative experience. The professional also must command a full understanding of their own ethical development and social identities to avoid engaging in stereotyping and other biased decision-making. That is, the effective educator requires a strongly developed internal foundation and multicultural capacity. Returning to the case of Sarah discussed in Box 2.1, having the option of a facilitated dialogue or mediation allows the institution to appropriately

64 responding to conflict on campus    address the conflict in a forum that views her as an equal participant rather than an alleged wrongdoer. The less formal pathways for conflict resolution where the desired outcome is a mutually satisfying win-win provides Sarah and the professor space to engage in thoughtful reflection about their interaction. More traditional interventions such as hearings encourage participants to justify their behaviors while positioned for a win-lose outcome. To implement a conflict resolution and conduct management program without engaging in discriminatory conduct, the student participant must choose to participate in good faith. The traditional hearing process should be available for students who are incapable of participating in alternative conflict resolution methods in good faith. The conflict resolution educators must be skilled, seasoned, and knowledgeable practitioners committed to the institution’s stated approach to instill trust and confidence in the community. Having the full menu of pathways available to resolve student conflicts or to manage student behaviors in a manner that is consistent with student learning and social justice theories is aligned with the constitutional concepts of substantive and procedural due process and nondiscrimination. Pathways selected and applied in a responsible manner are inherently thoughtful, deliberate, and reasoned as opposed to being arbitrary or capricious. Similarly, no matter which pathway is most appropriate, the student is still guaranteed notice and an opportunity to be heard. The spectrum model pathways, such as facilitated dialogue, mediation, and restorative justice circles, can provide a more robust opportunity for students to be heard than the more formal adjudication pathways (especially when advocates appear in a representative capacity). Moreover, these forums are intentionally tailored to provide the affected students with a safer and more egalitarian space for character development and personal accountability than what can be provided in a traditional hearing process. Conflict resolution educators can determine the desired learning outcomes that students should master as a result of their participation in campus conflict resolution processes and then infuse student learning theories into the establishment of conflict resolution programs/policies without compromising the institution’s due process obligations. If the goal is to teach students to understand themselves as part of a community and to appreciate how their actions affect others, this can be achieved through a traditional judicial hearing by holding the student strictly accountable for violation of community rules and regulations. But this goal may also be achieved through pathways offered as a diversion from the conduct hearing process, such as restorative justice practices or mediation. If the goal is for students to become aware of their internally driven self and evolve their moral and ethical decision-­making based on an appreciation of the source of their motives and intent, then a

reconciling legal obligations  

65

facilitated dialogue between parties coupled with a reflective writing exercise may be appropriate. The range of possibilities to support student learning is endless within the legal framework of fundamental fairness, including notice and an opportunity to be heard. It is important to recognize the limits of conflict resolution methods rooted in student learning theories when issues of violence and power inequality are present and undermine the community’s interest in safety. Clearly, disruptive student behaviors that negatively affect the ability of the community to function and that jeopardize the safety of the student or other community members require swift and effective institutional response. While conflict resolution methods should not necessarily be relied on to manage students in crisis, it is always advisable to rely on student learning concepts to shape an institutional response that creates an opportunity for making meaning, albeit later or away from the institution.

Conclusion In this chapter we have presented a collaborative conversation between student affairs professionals and in-house higher education attorneys about how to partner to create a robust conduct management program fully infused with conflict resolution pathways that meet the institution’s specific needs and is educationally focused. Creating learning opportunities for students in conflict or in response to student misconduct is difficult and messy work. The urge to bring quick order to the mess through strict adherence to rules and process should be resisted. Operating through a lens of inclusive excellence and in a socially just framework of thick theory is not tidy, yet we challenge colleagues to rely on the well-developed theories of moral, ethical, and psychosocial development to be comfortable in the messiness long enough to lay the foundation for the development of young adults who are learning to internalize the values of integrity, judgment, compassion, personal responsibility, accountability, and respect. This chapter reviews the conditions students learn best under and emphasizes the value of active student learning; the power of students to create their own meaning cognitively and affectively; and the role of institutions, educators, and peers to influence that learning. It prepares educators to leverage conflict as a tool for self-authorship toward functioning as global citizens with competence and character. While this may present a compelling case for framing all student conflict work to align with these purposes, serious consideration must be given to readiness at the personnel, unit, divisional, and institutional levels. While

66 responding to conflict on campus    the law is flexible enough to support the institution’s vision for managing student conflict and conduct issues, student affairs professionals and lawyers must undertake a realistic evaluation of their institution’s, division’s, conduct and conflict offices’, and personnel’s readiness to embrace a sophisticated and complex approach to student learning in the context of student conflict and conduct management. To determine readiness requires individuals and organizations to behave as reflective practitioners, carefully considering on a regular basis what they know, how they know it, and how they may leverage this understanding in future situations (Schön, 1983). For example, student affairs educators must be honest about their ability and capacity to explore and deliver a spectrum of conflict resolution practices. In-house counsel must be willing to challenge the traditional legal view that fairness equals sameness and sameness equals amnesty from legal action. The institution should be clear and transparent about its desired learning outcomes for the student conflict and conduct management program.

Summary This foundational chapter reflects the collaborative insights of veteran colleagues who bridge the developmental and educational mission of student affairs with the legal compliance guidance of in-house counsel. While the two are hardly dichotomous, educational and legal goals are often operationalized in ways that unnecessarily truncate and silo efforts and experiences in higher education. Partnerships, vision, and collaboration as presented here provide a catalyst for better and more constructive institutionalized conflict, conduct, and risk management. This chapter challenges the false dichotomy that pits educational intentionality against legal compliance. We put forward the compatible to competing continuum and recognize that one does not have to sacrifice the individual good for the community good but may invest meaningfully in both. Leveraging conflict situations for the greater good of student learning can also serve to protect the interests of the community. It is only from an informed, studied perspective about the aims of student learning that a different lens may be applied to conflict issues and the developmental role they offer. Institutions will need to determine for themselves if they are positioned to frame their work within this broader learning perspective. The most vital element to engaging in any student-related work is authenticity. Rather than place a value judgment on preferred models and approaches, the decision about direction will need to be based on an assessment of how any organization can live into its best self. And, depending on organizational and staff

reconciling legal obligations  

67

readiness, this best self may be fluid over time. In the end, clarity about the purpose of the work and intentionality around its delivery will allow conflict resolution educators to engage in their own good work with competence and character. As we weigh how educators may facilitate opportunities for learning offered in these transitional moments and years, we are reminded of Dewey’s (1934) notion that the mind is a verb not a noun, a process not a structure. How might we prompt the processes for students’ full engagement in their own learning? And, as educators, how might we treat our own minds like verbs to remain open to the array of approaches for encouraging the development of competence and character through the vehicles of behavioral incidents and conflict situations? If we have the capacity to remain cognizant of the ultimate purpose of our work, form will follow function. Ernest Boyer (1987), as head of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, said this of higher education: The aim of the undergraduate experience is not only to prepare the young for productive careers, but also to enable them to live lives of dignity and purpose; not only to generate new knowledge, but to channel that knowledge to humane ends; not merely to study government, but to help shape a citizenry that can promote the public good. (p. 297)

Envisioning student conflict resolution and management not as an end in itself (managing behavior) but as a tool for affecting student growth and development to prepare students as productive, purposeful, knowledge-­ generating, humane citizens of the world is a worthy purpose for student affairs educators. It creates the avenue for developing good workers to do good work, and here we are far from referring to occupation but to a way of living, possessing competence and character for the greater good. Various conflict resolution methods can be designed to provide participants with the opportunity to learn how to be good citizens in a just community. This, in the end, transforms the what of conflict work to the so what of student learning.

Questions for Reflection and Dialogue For ongoing collaborative inquiry, capacity assessment, and strategic planning moving forward, readers are invited to copy and share the following exercise for educational (not for profit) purposes. The worksheet is based on original questions posed by Taylor and Varner (2009) and developed by Giacomini (n.d.). Please include credit to the original authors in reproductions and adaptations provided at the end of the assessment.

68   

responding to conflict on campus

Readiness for Inclusive Change: A Capacity-Building Assessment Reframing campus conflict and transforming student conduct principles and practices is strategic, thoughtful work. It must be done responsibly and in ways that invite inclusive, ongoing stakeholder engagement at all institutional levels and across functional areas throughout each stage of the planning, decision-making, implementation, and evaluation process. Use the assessment worksheet (Table 2.4) individually and in teams to consider institutional capacity for inclusive change management that balances student education and development with institutional harm and risk management. Answers will help gauge readiness for inclusive change and identify areas of strength and those that require added capacity-building. Place an “x” along the provided continuum in answer to each of the first three sets of question. TABLE 2.4

Assessment Worksheet Are you/your staff: 1. Educated in current theory and research regarding student learning processes and outcomes, as well as moral and ethical development? 2. Advanced in your own development of internal foundations to instill reasoned, ethical, and principled decision-making in your work? 3. At a level of professional maturity to deal with the ambiguity and messiness inherent in nontraditional models of practice grounded in inclusion? 4. Supported by bench strength, motivation, creativity, and diversity to employ a range of resolution strategies and work meaningfully with students?

Yes

Somewhat

Not yet

Yes

Somewhat

Not yet

Yes

Somewhat

Not yet

Yes

Somewhat

Not yet

Yes

Somewhat

Not yet

Yes

Somewhat

Not yet

5. Competent in assessment to measure impact? 6. Ready with a demonstrated track record of making sound judgments? (Continues)

reconciling legal obligations  

69

Table 2.4 (Continued ) Does your functional unit: 1. Employ best practices in its current work? 2. Have a mission, vision, strategic plan, and evaluation methods that can support an inclusive approach to the work?

Yes

Somewhat

Not yet

Yes

Somewhat

Not yet

Yes

Somewhat

Not yet

Yes

Somewhat

Not yet

Yes

Somewhat

Not yet

Yes

Somewhat

Not yet

Yes

Somewhat

Not yet

Yes

Somewhat

Not yet

Yes

Somewhat

Not yet

3. Have educated and experienced staff to carry out an inclusive approach? 4. Have sufficiently strong relationships with key campus partners and leaders to build partnerships for this work? 5. Demonstrate functioning in a status quo or change management phase, assuming the current work is being done well within its established framework? 6. Resource at a level that can accommodate approaches that may bring greater effectiveness but perhaps not greater efficiency? Is student affairs divisional work: 1. Informed by the most current theory, research, and best practices? 2. Conceptually and tangibly supportive of an inclusive student learning approach to its work rather than a more activities/servicesoriented approach? 3. Articulated and measured as learning outcomes? (Continues)

70   

responding to conflict on campus

Table 2.4 (Continued ) 4. Grounded in valuing active student learning interventions? 5. In a phase that supports reframing inquiry and efforts (i.e., are they in a status quo or change-management phase and how will this impact dialogue around change)?

Yes

Somewhat

Not yet

Yes

Somewhat

Not yet

At the institutional level (make brief notes in answer to provided questions): 1. What is the institution’s culture and approach to student learning and conflict and conduct management? 2. What is the scope of conflict resolution and conduct management services currently offered? How broad or narrow is conflict work defined? 3. How is the current campus approach perceived as effective in achieving desired student learning outcomes? 4. What behavioral challenges on your campus may be more suited to expanded conflict-resolution process options? 5. Which student groups present unique opportunities to expand process options and practices? 6. Where are potential partners, colleagues, competitors, and naysayers? 7. Is the institution in a status quo or change-management phase? 8. Does the institution have the capacity to withstand scrutiny and support its educational aims? 9. Do the current policies and practices of key partners (e.g., general counsel, intergroup relations, and public safety) support or undermine active student learning interventions? (Continues)

reconciling legal obligations  

71

Table 2.4 (Continued ) 10. What is the current scope and capacity of the institution’s student support services to sustain a broad range of conflict resolution (i.e., counseling and psychological services, services for students with disabilities, sexual assault prevention and awareness centers, health services)? Note. Worksheet by S. H. Taylor, D. T. Varner, & N. G. Giacomini, adapted from the published work of Taylor, S. H. & Varner, D. T. (2009). Readers may copy and use the worksheet for educational nonprofit purposes with attribution to Taylor, S. H. & Varner, D. T. (2020). Reconciling Legal Obligations with Education Goals: Revisiting Foundations of Student Conflict Work. In J. M. Schrage & N. G. Giacomini (Eds.), Reframing Campus Conflict: Student Conduct Practice Through the Lens of Inclusive Excellence. Stylus.

Note 1. Colleges and universities receiving federal funds are prohibited from discriminating against beneficiaries of those federally funded programs based on an individual’s race, color, or national origin (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), sex (Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), age (Age Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6104), disability (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101). In addition, Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits public colleges from engaging in religious discrimination in the admissions process. In addition, state laws and municipal ordinances prohibit discrimination in the provision of educational services on additional classifications such as veteran’s status or sexual orientation.

References Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of multiple dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the construction of multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development, 48(1), 1–22. Aldous Bergerson, A., & Huftalin, D. (2011). Becoming more open to social identitybased difference: Understanding the meaning college students make of this movement. Journal of College Student Development, 52(4), 377–395. Alwin, D., Cohen, R., & Newcomb, T. (1991). Political attitudes over the life span: The Bennington women after fifty years. University of Wisconsin Press. American Association for Higher Education, American College Personnel Association, & NASPA–Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. (1996). The

72   

responding to conflict on campus

student learning imperative: Implications for student affairs. American College Personnel Association & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. American College Personnel Association & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience. Author. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 2, 104 Stat. 328 (1991). Arao, B. & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces: A new way to frame dialogue around diversity and social justice. In L. Landreman (Ed.), The art of effective facilitation: Reflections from social justice educators (pp. 135–150). Stylus. Arnett, J. J. (2014). Adolescence and emerging adulthood (4th ed.). Prentice Hall. Arnett, J. J. (Ed). (2016). The Oxford handbook of emerging adulthood. Oxford University Press. Association of American Colleges & Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global century. Author. Astin, W. A. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. JosseyBass. Baxter Magolda, M. (1999). Engaging students in active learning. In G. S. Blimling, E. J. Whitt, & Associates (Eds.), Good practice in student affairs: Principles to foster student learning (pp. 21–43). Jossey-Bass. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Complex lives. In Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development (pp. 3–36). Stylus. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2008). Three elements of self-authorship. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 269–284. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2014). Self-authorship. New Directions in Higher Education, 166, 25–33. Baxter Magolda, M. B., & King, P. M. (2004). (Eds.). Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship. Stylus. Baxter Magolda, M. B., & King, P. M. (2012). Assessing meaning making and selfauthorship: Theory, research, and application, Vol. 3. Jossey-Bass. Bishop v. Woods, 426 U.S. 341 (1976). Blimling, G. S., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (1999). Good practice in student affairs: Principles to foster student learning. Jossey-Bass. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978). Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. Harper & Row. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Campus Life: In search of community. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886 (1961). Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Civil Rights Act, 42 USCS § 2000e (1964).

reconciling legal obligations  

73

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. Minton, Balch & Company.  Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan. Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961). Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018). Dweck, C. S. (2006/2016). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Penguin. Dworkin, M. S. (Ed.). (1959). Dewey on education selections. In Classics in education no. 3. Teachers College Press. Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth in crisis. Norton. Federal Register. (2018, December 31). 2018 federal register index. https://www .federalregister.gov/index/2018 Freire, P. (1970/1997). Pedagogy of the oppressed (Rev. ed.) (M. Bergman Ramos, Trans.). Continuum. Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. Basic Books. Gardner, H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Damon, W. (2001). Good work: When excellence and ethics meet. Basic Books. Gardner, H., & Davis, K. (2013). Unpacking the generations: From biology to culture to technology. In The app generation: How today’s youth navigate identity, intimacy, and imagination in a digital world (pp. 35–59). Yale University Press. Giacomini, N. G. (n.d.). Readiness for inclusive change: A capacity building assessment [Unpublished training material]. Giedd, J. N. (2004). Structural magnetic resonance imaging of the adolescent brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1021, 77–85. Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (1997). Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975). Hardiman, R., & Jackson, B. W. (1992). Racial identity development: Understanding racial dynamics in college classrooms and on campus. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 52, 21–37. Harwood, M. (2008). Teaming up to reduce risk. Security Management, 66–78. Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2004). Integrative learning: Mapping the terrain. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977). Jones, S., & McEwen, M. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4), 405–414. Kaplin, W. & Lee, B. (2013). The law of higher education: A comprehensive guide to legal implications of administrative decision making (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. ­Harvard University Press. Keeling, R. P., & Hersh, R. H. (2011). We’re losing our minds: Rethinking American higher education. Palgrave Macmillan.

74   

responding to conflict on campus

Keup, J. (Ed.). (2012). Peer leadership in higher education. Jossey-Bass. King, T., & White, B. (n.d.). An attorney’s role in the conduct process. Association for Student Conduct Administration. https://www.theasca.org/files/Best%20 Practices/Attorney%20role%20in%20conduct%20process%20%202.pdf Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralizations: The cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues (pp. 31–55). Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. W. Chickering & Associates (Eds.), The modern American college (pp. 232–255). Jossey-Bass. Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges & Universities. Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. (2005). Never let it rest: Lessons about student success from high-performing colleges and universities. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 37(4), 44–51. Laney, J. T. (1990). Through thick and thin: Two ways of talking about the academy and moral responsibility. In W. W. May (Ed.), Ethics and higher education (pp. 49–66). American Council on Education & Macmillan. Leskes, A., & Miller, R. (2006). Purposeful pathways: Helping students achieve key learning outcomes. Association of American Colleges & Universities. Levine, A., & Dean, D. R. (2012). Generation on a tightrope: A portrait of today’s college student. Jossey-Bass. Lipson, S. K., Lattie, E. G., & Eisenberg, D. (2018, November 5). Increased rates of mental health service utilization by U.S. college students: 10-year populationlevel trends (2007-2017). Psychiatric Services, 70(1), 60–63. Markus, H. & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954– 969. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). Mayhew, M. J., Rockenbah, A. N., Bowman, N. A., Seifert, T. A., Wolniak, G. C. with Pascarella E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2016). How college affects students: 21st century evidence that higher education works, Vol. 3. Jossey-Bass. McCoy, D. L., & Rodricks, D. J. (2015). Critical race theory as a (student) development theory. In Critical race theory in higher education: 20 Years of theoretical and research innovations (pp. 57–71). Jossey-Bass. McIntosh, P. (1992). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see correspondences through work in women’s studies. In M. Andersen & P. Hill Collins (Eds.), Race, class and gender (pp. 76–87). Wadsworth. Milem, J., Chang, M., & Antonio, A. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A research-based perspective. Association of American Colleges & Universities. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.

reconciling legal obligations  

75

NC Gen Stat § 116-40.11 (2012). https://osrr.uncg.edu/attorneynon-attorneyinformation/nc-general-statute-116-40-11/ Palko v. State of Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937). Pascarella E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. Jossey-Bass. Pascarella E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research, Vol. 2. Jossey-Bass. Peet, M., Lonn, S., Gurin, P., Boyer, K. P., Matney, M., Marra, T., Taylor, S. H., & Daley, A., (2011). Fostering integrative knowledge through ePortfolios. International Journal of ePortfolio, 1(1), 11–31. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Pope, R. (2000). The relationship between psychosocial development and racial identity of college students of color. Journal of College Student Development, 41(3), 302–312. Quaye, S. J., & Harper, S. R. (Eds.). (2009/2015). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations. Routledge. Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985) Reyna, V. F., & Farley, F. (2006). Risk and rationality in adolescent decision making: Implications for theory, practice, and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(1), 1–44. Rhodes, T. (2010). Assessing outcomes and improving achievement: Tips and tools for using rubrics. Association of American Colleges & Universities Rose, T. (2016). The end of average: Unlocking our potential by embracing what makes us different. HarperCollins. Sanford, N. (1962). Developmental status of the entering freshman. In N. Sanford (Ed.), The American college (pp. 253–282). Wiley. Schlossberg, N. K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. In D. C. Roberts (Ed.), Designing campus activities to foster a sense of community (pp. 5–15). Jossey-Bass. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. Schrage, J. M., & Thompson, M. C. (2008, June). Using a social justice model for conflict resolution to ensure access for all students. Paper presented at the Donald D. Gehring Academy for Student Conduct Administration, Salt Lake City, UT. Soong v. University of Hawaii at Hilo, 825 P.2d 1060 (Haw. 1992) Stoner, E., & Lowery, J. (2004). Navigating past the spirit of insubordination: A twenty-first century model student conduct code with a model hearing script. Journal of College and University Law, 31(1), 1–78. Tatum, B. D. (1997/2017). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. Basic Books.

76   

responding to conflict on campus

Taylor, K. B. (2008). Mapping the intricacies of young adults’ developmental journey from socially prescribed to internally defined identities, relationships, and beliefs. Journal of College Student Development, 49(3), 215–234. Taylor, S. H. (1998). The impact of college on the development of tolerance. NASPA Journal, 35(4), 281–295. Taylor, S. H. (2011). Engendering habits of mind and heart through integrative learning. About Campus, 16(5), 13–20. Taylor, S. H. & Varner, D. T. (2009). When student learning and law merge to create educational student conflict resolution and effective conduct management programs. In J. M. Schrage & N. G. Giacomini (Eds.) Reframing campus conflict: Student conduct practice through a social justice lens (pp. 22–64) Stylus. Tenerowicz, L. (2001). Student misconduct at private colleges and universities: A roadmap for fundamental fairness in disciplinary proceedings. Boston College Law Review, 42(3), 653–694. Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella E., & Blimling, G. (1996). Students’ out-of-class experiences and their influence on learning and cognitive development: A literature review. Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 149–162. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§1681-1688. TNG. (2013). A developmental framework for a code of student conduct: TNG model code project. https://tngconsulting.com/resources/model-code-project/ United Educators. (2019). Large loss reports. https://www.ue.org/for-brokers/largelosses-at-educational-institutions/ U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2001, January 19). Revised sexual harassment guidance. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ docs/shguide.html U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2006, January 25). Dear Colleague Letter. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/sexhar-2006. html U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2011, April 4). Dear ­Colleague  Letter. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague201104.html U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2014, April 29). Questions & answers on Title IX and sexual violence. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2015, April 24). Dear colleague letter on Title IX coordinators. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ letters/colleague-201504-title-ix-coordinators.pdf U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2017, September 22). Department of Education issues new interim guidance on campus sexual misconduct. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/department-education-issues-newinterim-guidance-campus-sexual-misconduct Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)

reconciling legal obligations  

77

Zull, J. E. (2011). From brain to mind: Using neuroscience to guide change in education. Stylus. Zúñiga, X., Ratnesh, B., Nagda, A., Chesler, M., & Cytron-Walker, A. (2007). Intergroup dialogue in higher education: Meaningful learning about social justice. ASHE Higher Education Report Series, 32(4), 1–156.

3 WHY OBJECTIVITY IS N OT N E A R LY E N O U G H The Critical Role of Social Justice in Campus Conflict and Conduct Work Ryan C. Holmes, Keith E. Edwards, Tamara L. Greenfield King, and Michael M. DeBowes If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. —Desmond Tutu

Introduction In this chapter, authors trace the evolution of the contemporary student conflict and conduct management field through the lens of social justice as well as in the broader sociopolitical context in which institutions of higher education operate. This chapter provides an overview of foundational concepts of social justice and makes the case for social justice as a necessary framework for higher education generally and student conflict and conduct management specifically. Given the individual experiences of oppression and socialization in oppressive systems and the systemic ways in which administrators and institutions of higher education too often perpetuate injustice in our communities, infusing multipartiality over perceived neutrality and objectivity into day-to-day practice is essential to addressing inequities, being more inclusive, and fostering greater justice and equity in higher education and beyond.

78

why objectivity is not nearly enough  

79

Historical and Societal Context Donald D. Gehring (1998), founder of the Association for Student Judicial Affairs, provided one of our earliest glimpses into what it means to view student conduct practice through a social justice lens when he observed the following: Judicial affairs administrators, . . . probably more than anyone else on campus, are central to the task of building what Boyer calls a just community and a disciplined community. Programs must be designed that are proactive attempts to combat campus racism and sexism with the idea of creating a community where each individual is respected, but individuals also accept their obligations to the community. (pp. 265–266)

Despite many changes in the broader context over the past decades, this quote remains an aspirational call for student conflict and conduct management practitioners to engage in their own critical self-reflection work and continue to intentionally design and implement conduct management systems that honor the dignity and humanity of all participants while considering the interests of the broader community. The field has expanded from an initial focus on “judicial affairs” to a broader continuum of conflict and conduct management approaches. This expansion was marked, in part, by the Association for Student Judicial Affairs changing its name in 2008 to the Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA) and formulating core values that established diversity and inclusion as integral to the association and its members (King, 2009). Building on this shift, ASCA embraced the spectrum model approach (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) as part of professional training curriculum at the ASCA Gehring Academy for Student Conduct Administration that same year, a model introducing a social and restorative justice foundation and multiple pathways for resolution of campus incidents. With these changes and following the first publication of this book, there was a shift toward implementing more inclusive social and restorative justice conflict management systems on many campuses over the next decade (Wilgus & Schrage, 2013). In 2015, ASCA established the Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Action Plan Task Force to build on the association’s previous diversity strategic plans developed in 2007 and 2012 toward the goal of “infusing diversity and inclusion throughout all aspects of ASCA” (ASCA, 2015, p. 1). Over the past 20 years, larger social movements, such as #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, immigration rights, and transgender rights

80 responding to conflict on campus    movements, have permeated the broader societal culture in the United States and have impacted college campuses. These movements along with increased social awareness have brought new focus, attention, and energy to address issues of social injustice impacting and being perpetuated by institutions of higher education. Campus communities, particularly minoritized and marginalized voices, have challenged institutions to both recognize and reconcile their role in perpetuating, mitigating, and addressing individual and institutional oppression. Social media, camera phones, and other technological advances have also made it possible for greater awareness of injustices that may have not gained national attention or even any attention previously. These tools have made it possible for voices to be heard and amplified without systemic institutional support. Hashtags, videos of police shootings, the organizing of protests, survivors sharing their stories, and more have fostered new possibilities and new challenges for social justice in society and on campus. The new awareness, new challenges, and greater complexity of social justice issues that have emerged since the initial publication of this book are palpable reminders that social justice remains aspirational as both a process and a goal (Adams et al., 2016). Progress has been made in some areas to create more welcoming and inclusive campuses where students may feel increasingly empowered to be their whole and authentic selves, whether because of or despite institutional efforts. At the same time, new issues and perspectives have come to the fore and can be more fully understood and accounted for by using social justice as an additional and necessary lens. Several ­scenarios help demonstrate the interplay between these complex dynamics. Incidents like those presented in Box 3.1 and the questions they raise are important to consider for our students and the systems in which we work, but we cannot fully explore the lens of social justice without turning that lens on ourselves. Such introspection may produce considerable dissonance in light of our historical training and experience. Student conflict and conduct management professionals are routinely tapped to provide leadership for an array of complex situations in which a student’s behavior is purportedly in conflict with an institutional policy, standard, or member of the community. Professional oversight of adjudication and other dispute resolution processes is naturally expected to be fair and impartial to ensure equitable educational outcomes for all involved parties. This expectation has been codified in federal law as it pertains to the resolution of incidents of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking (Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, 2014). However, the notion that professionals

why objectivity is not nearly enough  

81

BOX 3.1.

Case in Point

Consider an African American man arrested by a White campus police officer for his involvement in a nonviolent campus protest. Through the trained lens of student rights we consider at the outset how the First Amendment may inform the institution’s ability to discipline the student. We also consider how to properly notify the student of the charge, what procedural options to provide, how to conduct a resolution process under a well-defined policy, and what tangible outcomes may result from this process. Adding a social justice lens invites deeper reflection on both a case-by-case and a systemic level. To what extent is the construct of race salient to the student in terms of his participation in the protest and/or in the student conduct process? The construct of gender? How, if at all, do local, national, and international events highlighting tensions between African Americans and law enforcement contextualize the incident for which the student was referred? In another example, consider the case of a nonbinary transgender student who is assigned to live in a single gender women’s residence hall as a member of a residential learning community connected to a firstyear course in which the student is enrolled. A female identified resident of the building anonymously reports that the transgender student’s use of a “women’s” bathroom has made the reporting party uncomfortable and wants the student to be required to use a bathroom in another building or relocate to other campus housing. The students’ rights lens invites us to consider whether an anonymous complaint requires investigation or corroboration before proceeding with the student conduct process, or whether the reported conduct, if true, is prohibited by current campus policy. Adding a social justice lens broadens our view, as we might consider how the campus policies themselves might be oppressive, or how the practitioner’s experiences as a cisgender or transgender person might affect their beliefs about the appropriate way to proceed. Do we know if the reported party identifies as transgender and, if so, is the student out in the campus community as transgender? How could the process and systems in place not be based on gendered assignments and allow for more universal design? What role should the student conduct process have, if any, in policing gender? To what extent does the campus have gender-inclusive housing and policies that are affirming to all genders, and what responsibility (and opportunity) do student conflict and conduct management professionals have to advance such policies and practices at their institutions?

82 responding to conflict on campus    may remain impartial in the face of their own biases is not realistic or productive as larger societal dynamics cannot be separated from the humans involved in the implementation of these procedures. Moreover, as Arao (2017) noted, A system applied by people in positions of authority (e.g., student conduct administrators) to those over whom they have power (e.g., students) cannot be expected to produce fair outcomes if it was not clearly designed based on the diverse needs and concerns of those who are subject to the system. (p. 123)

On the modern campus in the United States, oppression is a feature, not a bug, and student conflict and conduct management practitioners must realize that “every system is exquisitely designed to produce the results it gets. If you want to change the results, you have to change the system” (Batalden, as quoted in Kendall, 2013, p. xix). Batalden pioneered systemic quality improvement principles that revolutionized health care. Given that systems, including institutions of higher education, are designed consciously and unconsciously to reinforce, replicate, and perpetuate systemic oppression (Adams et al., 2016; Quaye et al., 2018), each practitioner must consider how they have been socialized in systems of oppression and have internalized those oppressive beliefs. This can be challenging and requires constant focus on returning to the ongoing process of developing critical consciousness for the social group identities where individuals experience social privilege and dominance, as this can evoke guilt and dissonance and challenge foundational paradigms about the profession, identities, and worldview. This can further be challenging in different ways where individuals experience oppression and marginalization as a result of their social group identities and yet fail to recognize where they too have internalized the systems of oppression about themselves and people like them. This critical self-reflection requires one to accept the fact that their point of view is not the sole point of view, may not be the “correct” one, and may be built on misinformation and stereotypes. This process requires people to admit that their assumptions from past socialization may be wrong. Drawing from the first case presented in Box 3.1, how might a practitioner who identifies as Latinx critically examine what anti-Black racism they might have been socialized into while experiencing racism, as they consider their role in developing a socially just path for the African American student arrested by a White campus police officer? There are many resources on privilege for those who desire to understand more (Edwards, 2006; Johnson, 2001; Kendall, 2013; Kivel, 2000).

why objectivity is not nearly enough  

83

Foundations of Social Justice Although higher education personnel in general and student affairs educators specifically, may be familiar with terms such as diversity and multiculturalism, it is critical to differentiate between those familiar concepts and social justice. There are many different definitions of these and other terms, including intercultural competence, inclusive excellence, cultural competence, cultural humility, equity, inclusion, and multicultural competence. The Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) has embraced the term inclusive excellence (Williams et al., 2004), which lead author Williams (2017) defined as the “strategic pursuit of a set of balanced diversity objectives, which reposition diversity and inclusion as fundamental to institutional excellence” (p. 6). Milem, Chang, and Antonio (2012) define inclusive excellence as having five elements for building meaningfully diverse higher education communities, including compositional diversity (numbers); the historical legacy of inclusion/exclusion; the psychological climate; the behavioral climate; and the organization’s policies, curriculum, and budget allocations. Stewart (2017) challenges higher education to move beyond the language of “diversity” and “inclusion,” which focuses attention on structural diversity and seeking to better include marginalized voices. Embracing “equity” and “justice” more deeply recognizes and seeks to address the systemic and structural root causes of the needs for greater diversity and inclusion. In this chapter, the authors use social justice, not only because the term recognizes human differences and social group identities but also because it includes the process and the goal of explicitly examining and addressing the power structures in society related to the differences that result in systemic privilege and oppression to create a more just and equitable society for all (Adams et al., 2016). Although campus communities in different regional, religious, cultural, and historical contexts may use different terms to name their approach, the authors suggest being clear that the work is more than just acknowledging and celebrating difference but seeking a liberating approach that explicitly seeks social change at the individual, institutional, and societal levels to foster more justice and equity within and beyond institutions of higher education. As individuals, we each have multiple social group identities (Jones & Abes, 2013). Some of these multiple identities may be more salient to us than others depending on whether we experience oppression as a result of our identities, our personal experiences throughout our lives, or the context that we are in at a given moment. For example, a person who identifies as a cisgender African American woman may experience situations wherein

84 responding to conflict on campus    her gender is front and center. The next day she may encounter a situation wherein her race is most salient. Finally, she may experience situations wherein multiple intersecting identities including gender and race evoke multiple experiences of systemic oppression (Crenshaw, 1989). Given our multiple identities (Jones & Abes, 2013) we experience the intersections of different systemic forms of oppression such as racism, classism, genderism, and religious oppression (Crenshaw, 1989). Although individuals may find that one aspect of their identity is generally or situationally more salient than others, it is important to note that these forms of oppression are deeply intertwined. Accordingly, competing in the “Oppression Olympics” is a zero-sum game; prioritizing certain forms of oppression over others is not helpful in advancing social justice for all (Martinez, 1998). Throughout our lives each of us has received messages that have informed how we view ourselves and others related to our social group identities (Harro, 2000). Those early messages are then reinforced both consciously and unconsciously by social institutions such as schools, religious institutions, and media. This socialization results in the development of individual biases and prejudices, which are inevitable given our lifelong socialization in an often-oppressive society. These biases become implicit when they are so well internalized that they can affect our decisions and choices related to others without our conscious awareness (Banaji & Greenwald, 2013). Efforts by professionals who may self-identify as allies and try to convince others (and themselves) that they have transcended their own oppressive socialization because they are well meaning, work in higher education, or have been through diversity training can actually do harm despite their best intentions to be neutral, objective, and fair (Edwards, 2006). Once we acknowledge the inevitability of our own oppressive socialization, we can move beyond pain, denial, guilt, and defensiveness. This enables us to be more conscious of our oppressive and internalized socialization and the messages we continue to be exposed to in our lives. One of the most pernicious aspects of this system of oppression is that even members of the subordinate group collude with the system that oppresses them, often unconsciously, as a result of being socialized by the same oppressive messages (Adams & Zúñiga, 2016). Take, for example, an Asian American supervisor who trusts a lighter complexion Asian American employee over another Asian American employee with a darker complexion. This could be the result of years of being socialized into accepting the false belief that lighter-complexion Asian Americans are somehow superior or more trustworthy than the darker-complexion Asian Americans. Similarly, internalized dominance occurs when members of privileged groups begin to believe the persistent oppressive messages that they receive. Examples of

why objectivity is not nearly enough  

85

internalized dominance include a White person who favors a White applicant as “a better organizational fit” or cisgender parents of cisgender children unintentionally mis-gendering a nonbinary or transgender classmate. All of us can work toward a more just and equitable society across our social group identities. This work is difficult and requires doing more than simply not participating directly in perpetuating oppression, although that in itself can be very difficult. We must work against the system of oppression in place. Tatum, author of Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? (2003) likens the system of oppression to a conveyor belt. Tatum (2000) notes that remaining still is insufficient because the system will continue to carry us along without active resistance. Working toward social justice, then, involves turning around and moving against the flow of the system. Just as moving against the conveyor belt on an airport walkway could have its costs, being an advocate for social justice can have its costs as well. Kendall (2013) describes being an ally as being willing to place oneself in front of a train so that a member of the subordinate group does not have to take the hit one more time. In fact, history is full of both subordinate group members and dominant group members who have taken steps to fight injustice and have experienced the costs and the joys of such work (Takaki, 1993; Zinn, 2003). Today, social media and digital innovations have allowed us to advance social justice (and social injustice) much more quickly and with a more global perspective.

Social Justice in Higher Education Historically, social justice has largely been a discipline beyond student affairs and higher education, including conflict management work. Campuses often advocated for diversity awareness and tolerance while endorsing diversity statements, but rarely did they invest in the work of systemic social justice and inclusive excellence initiatives at every level of the institution. Today, higher education and student affairs scholars have embraced diversity, access, and inclusion as part of the field and have generated social justice theory, concepts, critiques, perspectives, and policy recommendations. For example, ACPA—College Student Educators International launched its Commission on Social Justice Educators in 2005. In 2016, ACPA as a whole association embraced the Strategic Imperative on Racial Justice and Decolonization, and in 2018 Quaye et al. published A Bold Vision Forward: A Framework for the Strategic Imperative for Racial Justice and Decolonization. Institutions of higher education, professional associations, graduate preparation programs, and individual professionals are increasingly and more substantively

86 responding to conflict on campus    espousing the values of equity and social justice. However, enacting those values consistently remains elusive given the systemic nature of oppression, hierarchy, and complexity of issues and contexts in academia. Institutions of higher education not only are influenced by systems of oppression but also serve as key institutions in perpetuating and maintaining oppression (Quaye et al., 2018). Most institutions of higher education have legacies of educating only White, upper-class, men (Lucas, 2003). Beyond historical discrimination, many institutions still perpetuate oppression in subtle and not-so-subtle ways even as students, staff and faculty continue to diversify (Tierney, 1993). Higher education has traditionally taken a social services approach rather than a social change approach to social justice (Kivel, 2000). This social services approach seeks to provide additional assistance to those who are targets of oppression rather than change the underlying systems and structures causing oppression. Because oppression continues to exist in our society in many forms, this social services approach is important and necessary as many students arrive on campus with the routine, systematic, and daily experiences of marginalization and oppression. However, a social services approach is insufficient if we are seeking social justice; it puts all the burden on the oppressed individual instead of the oppressor. A social change approach means that higher education administrators take on the responsibility to not only develop their own critical consciousness and provide additional services to those who have historically and currently experience oppression but also work toward building college and university environments that do not perpetuate oppression. In addition, a social change approach in education means educating students so that they have the awareness, knowledge, skills, and commitment to work toward social justice (Edwards, 2006). Addressing the wide variety of social justice issues (ableism, classism, ethnocentrism, genderism, heterosexism, racism, religious oppression, sexism, etc.) across individual, institutional, and societal levels is complex. It can be intellectually and emotionally challenging to navigate the societal context around social justice beyond higher education. Individuals face day-to-day experiences of systemic privilege and oppression. We may read stories from survivors of gender-based sexual violence, witness microaggressions and genderism toward nonbinary and transgender individuals, bemoan new governmental policies that invalidate some identities and threaten the very existence of others, and watch murder based in racism play out in news videos on social media. This societal context can be overwhelming. At the institutional level, the work continues as higher education seeks to align its espoused and enacted values. Institutions are beginning to confront the messy, complex, and emotionally loaded challenges of what to do with buildings named after individuals who

why objectivity is not nearly enough  

87

advocated for slavery (Bradham, 2018; Koumpilova, 2019; Remnick, 2017). Decisions about whether to retain statues of Confederate generals on campus can cost a campus leader their presidency (Svrluga, 2019a). Land acknowledgments and renaming of spaces to recognize and honor the indigenous peoples who came before these institutions are more common (Tuck & Yang, 2012). Institutions founded on the selling of slaves are engaged in difficult conversations about the idea and the reality of reparations (Svrluga, 2019b). On the individual level, practitioners need to work to develop our own critical consciousness of who we are, how we have been socialized around our identities and the identities of others, and the process of unlearning. Critical consciousness is an ongoing process and not a status that is ever reached or achieved.

Social Justice in Student Conflict and Conduct Management Wilmot and Hocker (2001) defined conflict as “an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals” (p. 21). Schellenberg (1996) defined conflict resolution as “a marked reduction in social conflict” (p. 9). In examining these definitions from a social justice perspective, it remains evident that the need for continued inquiry about current frameworks still exists. These definitions of conflict point out that there merely needs to be a different perception for a conflict to manifest. On the institutions of higher education campus and in online platforms, one only needs to feel as though they are at odds with others or sense that the institution’s systems are oppressive in nature for the foundation of conflict to be set. Total inclusivity and social justice are still an aspiration, and ­distrust has space to grow. While students make up most of campus communities, they are often not in positions to be institutional decision makers and powerbrokers. For this reason and others, we have chosen to transcend the student-to-student only paradigm and focus on campuses including faculty, staff, students, and other community members who can impact and drive the community’s cultural norms.

Societal Roots of Campus Conflict Consider the earlier scenario presented in Box 3.1 of the African American student arrested by the White police officer. The two of them may not know each other; however, they may already be in conflict based on perceived social group identity. While the deaths of victims of color Michael Brown, Philando Castile, Freddie Gray, Sandra Bland, George Floyd, Tony McDade,

88 responding to conflict on campus    Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, Rayshard Brooks, and many others did not happen on college campuses, many Black students are deeply impacted by these deaths based on shared experiences of race and improper use of force by police (Carr, 2016; Leiser & Barker, 2014; Pierre, 2015). These students may be feeling under threat in society in general and have those feelings exacerbated by situations like that presented when campus police erroneously asked Yale University student Lolade Siyonbola to leave her assigned residence when she fell asleep in the common area (Wootson, 2018). The internalized fears and feelings of all involved stemming from broader societal conflict and oppression do not subside or go away on campus because the actors are part of the same identity community. The same concepts could also apply to the second scenario presented in Box 3.1 regarding the complaint against the transgender student using the restroom in the building to which the student was assigned. What internalized beliefs could have been the impetus for the complaint? Perhaps the complainant thought the use of the bathroom was against law or policy or outside of the norms of the immediate community, felt fear or discomfort, or felt morally justified to complain. In any case, these beliefs bear unpacking. The halo effect can help us understand some of the dynamics at play in these conflicts. The halo effect is a form of cognitive bias that allows a person to form an overall opinion and feeling about another person (or thing) based on one limited and overgeneralized positive or negative perception (Thorndike, 1920). In other words, once a person forms the first impression of another individual, thing, or in some cases an entire social group, the halo effect that rests on an underlying bias skews the overall perception and influences future interactions. Assumptions based on generalized biases can be made based on a person’s defining characteristics such as race, age, and perceived ability, just to name a few. Consider what assumptions are being made by the individuals in scenarios entertained in Box 3.1? What biases might be perpetuated by those seeking to address or resolve the conflicts? These examples highlight how a lack of individual and systemic multicultural capacity that includes collaborative dialogue and community consensus can contribute to a conflict and allow policies to be weaponized on behalf of the individuals belonging to culturally dominant social groups. As the institution can be placed in the position of proponent for the dominant and opponent of the marginalized, conflict of yet another type can be created. Perceived lack of voice was central to two representative and widely covered campus conflicts that escalated to the broad community and societal level in Columbia, Missouri, and Charlottesville, Virginia. In the first instance, Black students and their supporters at the University of Missouri felt racial concerns were not being addressed by members of the administration and

why objectivity is not nearly enough  

89

escalated their demands for institutional action. In the aftermath of protests and a hunger strike, the administrative structure changed dramatically, and individual administrators lost their jobs. In Charlottesville, White supremacists marched on the University of Virginia’s campus and counter protesters challenged them. The conflict left many injured and activist Heather Heyer lost her life. At the core and while outcomes were notably distinct, these two instances are similar in that actions occurred because groups perceived that their needs were not being addressed and they took steps to affect change in their communities.

Power-Conscious Conflict Management These and growing examples of unrest and demands for change present challenges and opportunities in our academic communities. How do administrators and educators foster fair and equitable communities where all voices are heard and valued? Students may perceive traditional adjudication processes as oppressive based on historical and lived experiences, and despite the intentions and efforts of administrators, all processes offered by the institution may be perceived and felt as oppressive unless and until trust is repaired and there is space for all voices to be treated with equitable regard. Thus, the common model of adjudication may not always be equipped to bring about effective resolution of conflict when the institution’s principles and the student’s behavior are in discord with each other. The voices of those directly or indirectly involved may not be fully heard due to the constraints of a process that could limit education or involve a decision-maker (or decision-making body) concerned primarily with “fact finding, rule interpretation, and choice of sanction” (Baker, 2005, p. 28). The traditional adjudication model process often structurally dismisses the significance of the complainants’ identities, experience of oppression, or the impact of the respondent’s behavior on the complainant in the name of objectivity, neutrality, and justice as “blind.” Alleged or perceived rule violations alone are not always the most salient presenting issues in campus conflicts. Likewise, a report or formal charge does not have to be filed to address the matters of concern. Referring conflicts to the formal process or allowing them to first escalate into actionable conduct may overlook the root causes of a dispute and miss important educational opportunities that our processes are intended to produce. However, it is necessary to offer the parties an opportunity to be heard and to show them their stories truly matter in order to appropriately address their core concerns while supporting their overall educational endeavors. In these circumstances, and as discussed in depth in chapter 4, offering a ­spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) approach provides additional pathways

90 responding to conflict on campus    of conflict resolution that are not only helpful but also arguably necessary to address issues that traditional adjudication-based systems may not be equipped to manage. Though conflict may be viewed as negative by many, conflict also has benefits to those directly involved, others acting to help resolve the conflict, and to the community. The most upfront benefit is that of education. Colleges and universities are charged with meeting community members where they are and providing a learning experience. For this to happen, stakeholders must feel a sense of trust and authenticity when interacting with the structures, students, and professionals charged with fostering and contributing to teachable moments. Members of the community, including educators responsible for student conflict and conduct management, can use conflict to create opportunities for authentic reflection, dialogue, and learning among the various stakeholders who interact with our processes. As student conflict and conduct management administrators, we are entrusted with significant institutional power. We must use this authority to transform, rather than replicate, oppressive social systems that lurk within our institutions. Using a social justice lens to inform our practice can enhance our effectiveness as educators as well as improve the quality of life for members of the diverse communities in which we operate.

Self-Reflection and Critical Consciousness Our constituents will rightfully expect us to remain fair and objective in our decision-making and facilitation, yet our implicit biases are inevitable (Banaji & Greenwald, 2013). Biases show up in stark contrast, for instance, when torches are allowed to burn as they did in Charlottesville, Virginia, though there are rules against such activity, while elsewhere a person cannot gain employment for exercising the protected right to kneel during the national anthem. On our campuses, we give “due diligence” to making factdriven assessments about whether respondents are in violation of our policies, yet we cannot ignore or dismiss the societal dynamics informing our assumptions, approaches, biases, perspectives, and judgments. In both the adjudication process and alternative forms of dispute resolution, we must consider the ways in which oppression dynamics are operating, both overtly and covertly, in the presenting conflict, the disputants, and the facilitators. For those of us who attempt to provide guidance in resolution processes through a social justice lens, our own critical self-evaluation and a willingness to explore new skill sets are crucial. Contextualizing our own experiences and using a social justice lens can be tools to help us do a better job achieving

why objectivity is not nearly enough  

91

fair and equitable outcomes for all involved. Recognizing the dissonance we may experience as practitioners is well within our reach if we are willing to avail ourselves to serious, continuous introspection and learning. We can work to be more mindful of the diverse needs and range of experiences and perspectives among the students, faculty, and staff with whom we work, but we must also look inward at our own experiences. We must take inventory of our own socialization and the attendant narratives that inform our practice while being aware that both conscious and unconscious messages are constantly influencing us. For some, recognizing and inventorying our own socialization may seem benign or natural, while others may regard such exercises as radical departures from commonly accepted professional norms. Effective conflict resolution can only be realized through a better understanding of social justice. Social justice extends beyond diversity awareness trainings in which professionals and students may have previously participated. Today, professionals in student conflict and conduct management are working with more diverse and globalized campus populations. If we are to fully realize the transformative potential of our roles and advance social justice on campus, we cannot just react to the conflicts that arise. We much engage in more proactive and systemic approaches. The advancement and application of social justice requires honesty and vulnerability. By example, cocontributor Holmes asked two separate groups of participants to take part in the following guided exercise at a national conference of student affairs professionals: 1. Close your eyes. 2. Think of all your colleagues in your work environment (e.g., office, department, division or even university). 3. Think of all the colleagues you would share your true opinions with about race, oppression, gender bias, and the current state of government. 4. Think of all your colleagues who you would be able to truly hear their thoughts on the same and truly remain in an accepting space. 5. Write down the number of colleagues you have left. The average number of participants in each group was 75, yet only four raised their hands when asked if they had seven or more people in mind with whom they could communicate in this fashion. Exercises like this highlight the need for (and lack of ) honesty, courage, and vulnerability on campuses. It is equally important to note that many would consider

92 responding to conflict on campus    student affairs professionals among the best at addressing these concerns on the campus. Further, if professionals who are trained in diversity, dialogue, and conflict management have difficulty in approaching these topics, how much more difficult is it for students to address these conflicts in a healthy manner?

Multipartiality: More Necessary Than Ever Facilitator neutrality (Olshak, 2001; Warters 2000) in student conflict and conduct management practices may seem attainable but limits the voices and learning of those involved in the conflict. So long as inequitable ­systems and structures exist in society, individuals socialized in this environment will take on these as both conscious and implicit biases, and those individual biases will have an impact on processes in higher education and beyond. If the facilitator of the process tries to maintain that they are unaffected by social systems and structures, they are simply unaware of how their biases are influencing them and how they might be accounted for. They may find themselves unconsciously aligning with an individual, fostering or limiting empathy, or unable to hear or understand another’s perspective based on identities. This espoused objectivity can also give the feeling of an artificial process in which the genuineness of the session, or participants present, is questioned. Without practicing multipartiality, implicit bias and the halo effect impact those of us charged with aiding community members and influence the overall resolution. The truth is that all involved in a conflict, including the facilitator(s), are both directly and indirectly affected by the situation and their socialization. We all have thoughts, opinions, and histories that are tied to our own and to others’ power, privilege, and oppression. Yet, we all have the responsibility to maintain functionality through all the stimuli. Therefore, we must name it and approach conflicts with care and authenticity. Multipartiality involves seeking to understand a conflict from the varying perspectives of those involved and to invest in all parties rather than to rest on the premise of neutrality (Gadlin & Sturm, 2007). Multipartiality allows the facilitator to speak to areas of struggle and oppression in the midst of conflict for all to examine in real time while supporting peace. This method can aid participants in not just resolving a conflict but to also learn from the situation while increasing their communication skills to aid them in the future. It is the learning that is significant. Furthermore, it allows for the facilitator to be a more active participant in the process, to be an educator capable of providing a teachable moment and not simply be the keeper of the process. There are some that may even posit that a facilitator’s visible diversity is also important in the process. While this may be true, representation in

why objectivity is not nearly enough  

93

a system is one thing; however, training to ensure appropriate consideration regardless of identity is another. The goal is to ensure that bias is accounted for in the process. Oppression has a way of bending the oppressed to the will of a system while providing the desired results if not checked. The same can be true of facilitator influence. The effective use of multipartiality also allows for the institution’s policies, processes, and people to be called into question. It allows participants the ability to voice concerns they have with the institution as a player in their conflicts. It allows participants to bring more of themselves in the room— their struggles, their sense of meaning-making, and their thoughts that may not be politically correct or popular while also being allowed to be challenged without risk or censorship. Because these dynamics of socialization and implicit bias are constantly at play, not just in conflict resolution, multipartiality is an essential tool for all campus professionals to bring a critical awareness to their work. Just as important as the conflicts on our campuses are the ways we resolve them and the ways we get community members to express what they believe. It is equally important to give our community members space to request that for which we should not stand. What if use of multipartiality allowed participants to speak their truths outside of a formal adjudication process while also showing how their experiences influenced their behaviors? This approach offers a powerful learning opportunity. If education is the outcome, a student’s story and rationale for behaviors should be considered in determining the severity of an outcome. For a student arrested for civil disobedience as an example that borrows from scenarios presented in Box 3.1, a multipartial approach would surely prove beneficial for an officer to understand why it was important for the student to participate in the protest. Likewise, it may also be beneficial for the student to understand the officer’s perspective in completing the arrest. Was it the law or policy that required the action or was it an interpretation of law or policy? What could other students and officers learn about empathy, mutual understanding, and conflict d ­ e-escalation going forward? For the student who complained about the student who identifies as transgender using the restroom, what was behind the complaint—lack of awareness, malice, fear for safety, or perhaps advocating for others? What was the accused student to feel as a result of being confronted by those in authority? What fears were present for either? Again, the multipartial resolution of the situation is equally, if not more, important than the initial situation. When might an allegation be dismissed or de-escalated because of circumstance? The story is important to determine the next steps, and multipartiality applied in an adaptive and less formal conflict resolution pathway may be the only way to get the entire story.

94   

responding to conflict on campus

Conclusion As college and university campuses continue to become more diverse, and conflicts rooted in social injustice become more visible, so must the knowledge base and skill set of practitioners expand. With the increase of technological mediums, all student affairs professionals, and especially those with student conflict and conduct management responsibilities, will continue to encounter more complex situations in which the traditional response methods will be viewed as increasingly dated. In fact, this can be said about all aspects of the higher education campus. Professionals and students are charged with upholding the policies, standards, and values of colleges and universities; nevertheless, educational moments can be lost if students perceive community partners, systems, and the institution to be oppressive or outright adversarial. Would it be beneficial for institutions to invite community partners to participate in the creation of processes and guidelines and to hear the concerns of marginalized groups? The answer is a definitive “yes.” Privileged populations know the rules of a culture better than marginalized populations because they created them. Marginalized populations are often experts on the impacts of social structures in ways that privileged populations do not necessarily have to be. Now is the time to have the necessary conversations to alleviate the dissonance. At this point in U.S. history, equality remains an aspirational outcome and requires enhanced and sustained institutional practices and structures in order to realize real equality as the norm for all. We can no longer afford to address only the symptoms of inequality but tend instead to the systems that perpetuate those symptoms and their internalization and unique expression for every individual. If higher education fails to address problems at the systemic level, institutions are instead practicing a version of institutional benign neglect. Benign neglect allows situations intended to benefit certain populations more than others rather than focusing continual attention on long-standing as well as emerging concerns toward equitable s­olutions. Federal guidance on Title IX attempted to address benign neglect in the realm of sexual violence and gender-based discrimination by stating that institutions had the duty to not only stop the behavior but also put measures in place to prevent the occurrence of future situations to the best of the institution’s ability. The same criterion should apply to issues of race, ability, sexual orientation, and any other marginalized social identity at the core of a dispute. Resolving campus conflicts without recognizing the underlying biased belief systems of disputants as well as intervening staff and leadership, leaves much to be discovered while allowing those involved to erroneously

why objectivity is not nearly enough  

95

believe that learning occurred. If we fail to take social justice perspectives into account, we risk replicating a banking approach to education (Freire, 1972/2000) in which learning is dictated and disputants function merely as receptacles, not partners, during teachable moments. Instead, policy violations and conflict situations offer a tremendous opportunity to foster meaningful learning and development through partnerships with all involved. Fostering this sort of learning takes proactive and intentional engagement on the part of those that lead systems and processes. It cannot be achieved by sitting idly by. We are not neutral, nor should we (pretend to) be. Rather, we can exercise the kind of inclusive multipartiality that values and responds constructively and effectively to all stakeholders in a conflict management process. For facilitators, and professionals in general, to be good partners through their journey (Kegan, 1994), we must continue to strive for personal growth and understanding within ourselves. If we fail to consider social justice theory in the design and implementation of our resolution processes, however inclusively excellent they strive to be, we risk replicating and reinforcing the oppressive societal dynamics that surround our work. If we are sincere in our efforts to promote learning, development, and change within our respective campus communities, incorporating a social justice ethic into our practice will help us facilitate, rather than impede, social justice and realize true inclusive excellence on our campuses while working toward a more just and equitable society for us all.

Summary Our higher education communities are changing, all of them. Students believe in being free and saying what they believe while also not being harmed by another’s words (Selingo, 2018). Conflict and conduct management programs make space for meaningful conversations where professionals often have students’ undivided attention. Just and culturally sensitive processes and capacity-building training are integral to getting it right. Even more, perceptions of fairness, opportunities to be heard, and overall inclusion determine if the process feels right and can be trusted and if the institution is a place that fosters a sense of belonging, be it in person or online. This chapter highlights that all community members must be invited and empowered to be constructive contributors in their communities. Students come to institutions of higher education looking for just that: higher education. They come seeking to discover theories and models with relevance to their own experiences while finding ways to practice what they learn toward success. Education in appropriate conflict management while

96 responding to conflict on campus    finding ways to appreciate diversity in the community should be no different. Students (even parents and guardians) may take exception to campus efforts to stretch their comfort levels in relation to social justice and inclusion attempts, but these efforts are as central to institutional missions as the diverse (and often complained about) courses they are required to complete toward an academic degree. Many students question the value of what they learn in school until they use it. As campuses, nations, and the world continue to become more diverse and responsive to global and existential challenges, opportunities to use conflict management skills in community with others will assist students in navigating situations that may not even exist yet. In this current landscape, campuses committed to inclusive excellence will evolve and develop conflict and conduct management systems, like the spectrum model approach (Schrage & Thompson, 2008), that offer multiple pathways for resolution implemented through multipartial lenses and resting on a sturdy foundation of social and restorative justice.

Questions for Reflection and Dialogue 1. In what ways do social justice and inclusive excellence as theories, models, and terms of distinction differ? How might related theories and models enhance rather than detract from authentic institutional missions that drive systemic and sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives? 2. How is your campus community actively having discussions regarding identity and current structures/systems? 3. What issues of identity, inclusion, and justice are most salient for students on your campus? 4. In what ways does your institution, department, and staff perpetuate systems of oppression? 5. Honestly examine which implicit biases you bring to your work and interactions. 6. How can you practice multipartiality in your work? 7. Do you consider your campus to be social justice oriented? Why or why not? 8. What campus opportunities exist to help students navigate their own interpersonal conflicts? 9. Do community members receive equal education on campus options for advocacy, conflict resolution, and support? Please explain. 10. After reading this chapter, what will you commit to as an individual to improve your campus community?

why objectivity is not nearly enough  

97

11. How will you work with others to change campus structures and systems to allow maximum expression and fulfill obligations of protections?

References Adams, M., Bell, L. A., Goodman, D., & Joshi, K. Y. (Eds.). (2016). Teaching for diversity and social justice (3rd ed.). Routledge. Adams, M., & Zúñiga, X. (2016). Core concepts for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, D. J. Goodman, & K. Y. Joshi (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (3rd ed.) (pp. 95–130). Routledge. Arao, B. (2017). Exploring the experiences of Black men as respondents in university student conduct processes (Doctoral dissertation). USF Scholarship. https:// repository.usfca.edu/diss/406 Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA). (n.d.) History. https:// www.theasca.org/files/history%20for%20website.pdf Association for Student Conduct Administration. (2015). ASCA Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Action Plan Task Force. https://www.theasca.org/content .asp?contentid=49 Baker, T. J. (2005). Judicial complaint resolution models for higher education: An administrator’s reference guide. LRP. Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2013). Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people. Delacorte. Bradham, B. (2018, December 1). Duke to rename Carr Building. The Chronicle. https://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2018/12/duke-university-renames-carrbuilding-julian-carr-white-supremacist Carr, C. (2016, July 7). Minnesota athletes react to Philando Castile’s death. Star Tribune. http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-athletes-react-to-philando-castile -s-death/385861841/ Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1, 139–167. Edwards, K. E. (2006). Aspiring social justice ally identity development. NASPA Journal, 43(4), 39–60. Freire, P. (1972/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). Continuum. Gadlin, H., & Sturm, S. P. (2007). Conflict resolution and systemic change. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2007(1). https://ssrn.com/abstract=982364 Gehring, D. D. (1998). What does the future hold for student judicial affairs? Just discipline? In B. G. Paterson & W. L. Kibler (Eds.), The administration of campus discipline: Student, organizational and community issues (pp. 255–267). College Administration Publications.

98   

responding to conflict on campus

Harro, B. (2000). The cycle of socialization. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice: An anthology on racism, antisemitism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism and classism (pp. 15–21). Routledge. Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, 34 C.F.R. § 668.46(k)(2)(i) (2014) Johnson, A. G. (2001). Privilege, power, and difference. McGraw-Hill. Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college students: Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity. Jossey-Bass. Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Harvard University Press. Kendall, F. E. (2013). Understanding White privilege: Creating pathways to authentic relationships across race (2nd ed.). Routledge. King, T. (2009). Endorsement. In J. Schrage & N. G. Giacomini (Eds.), Reframing campus conflict: Student conduct practice through a social justice lens (pp. xiii–xiv). Stylus. Kivel, P. (2000). Social service or social change? Who benefits from our work? https:// www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/SocialServicesorSocialChange.pdf Koumpilova, M. (2019, April 27). University of Minnesota regents vote to keep Coffman Union name, other campus building names. Star Tribune. http://www .startribune.com/university-of-minnesota-regents-vote-to-keep-coffman-unionname-other-campus-building-names/509127872/ Leiser, K. & Barker, J. (2014, October 13). Protesters stage sit-in at St. Louis University. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-andcourts/protesters-stage-sit-in-at-st-louis-university/article_9805e775-dffa-5b5ab79d-6559866711ed.html Lucas, C. J. (2003). American higher education: A history. St. Martin’s. Martinez, E. (1998). De colores means all of us: Latina views for multi-colored century. South End Press. Milem, J., Chang, M., & Antonio, A. (2012). Making diversity work on campus: A research-based perspective. Association of American Colleges & Universities. http://galsinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/milem_et_al.pdf Olshak, R. T. (2001). Mastering mediation: A guide for training mediators in a college and university setting. LRP. Pierre, L. (2015, May 1). Frostburg State University community reacts to Freddie Gray’s wrongful death. The Bottom Line. https://thebottomlinenews.com/ frostburg-state-university-community-reacts-to-freddie-grays-wrongful-death/ Quaye, S. J., Aho, R. E., Jacob, M. B., Domingue, A. D., Guido, F. M., Lange, A. C., Squire, D., & Stewart, D-L. (2018). A bold vision forward: A framework for the strategic imperative for racial justice and decolonization. Report from ACPA: College Student Educators International, Washington DC. Remnick, N. (2017, February 11). Yale will drop Calhoun’s name from building. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/11/us/yale-protests-johncalhoun-grace-murray-hopper.html

why objectivity is not nearly enough  

99

Schellenberg, J. A. (1996). Conflict resolution: theory, research and practice. State University of New York Press. Schrage, J. M. & Thompson, M. C. (2008, June). Using a social justice model for conflict resolution to ensure access for all students. Paper presented at Donald D. Gehring Academy for Student Conduct Administration, Salt Lake City, UT. Selingo, J. (2018, March 12). College students support free speech—unless it offends them. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/college-studentssupport-free-speech--unless-it-offends-them/2018/03/09/79f21c9e-23e4-11e894da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.39832c82a374 Stewart, D-L. (2017, March 30). Language of appeasement. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2017/03/30/colleges-need-languageshift-not-one-you-think-essay Svrluga, S. (2019a, January 15). UNC Chancellor says confederate monument Silent Sam must go—and so will she. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost .com/education/2019/01/15/unc-chancellor-says-confederate-monument-silentsam-must-go-so-will-she/ Svrluga, S. (2019b, April 12). Georgetown students vote in favor of reparations for enslaved people. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/ 2019/04/12/georgetown-students-vote-favor-reparations-slaves/ Takaki, R. T. (1993). A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. Little, Brown & Co. Tatum, B. D. (2000). Defining racism: “Can we talk?” In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice: An anthology on racism, antisemitism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism and classism (pp. 79–82). Routledge. Tatum, B. D. (2003). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. Basic Books. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(1), 25–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0071663 Tierney, W. G. (1993). Building communities of difference: Higher education in the twenty-first century. Bergin & Garvey. Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1–40. Warters, W. C. (2000). Mediation in the campus community: Designing and managing effective programs. Jossey-Bass. Wilgus, J., & Schrage, J. M. (2013, March). The Spectrum Model’s revolution & evolution: Campus conduct & conflict management through a social & restorative justice lens. Survey results presented as part of ASCA Webinar. Williams, D. (2017). National inclusive excellence webinar toolkit. Center for Strategic Diversity Leadership & Social Innovation. http://inclusiveexcellencetour .com/wp-content/uploads/DAW_Inclusive_Excellence_Webinar_Toolkt.pdf Williams, D., Berger, J., & McClendon, S. (2004). Towards a model of inclusive excellence and change in post-secondary institutions. Association of American Colleges & Universities.

100   

responding to conflict on campus

Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2001). Interpersonal conflict. McGraw-Hill. Wootson, S., Jr. (2018, May 11). A Black Yale student fell asleep in her dorm’s common room. A White student called the police. Washington Post. https:// www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2018/05/10/a-black-yalestudent-fell-asleep-in-her-dorms-common-room-a-white-student-calledpolice/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e49d143c593a Zinn, H. (2003). A people’s history of the United States, 1942-present. HarperCollins.

4 C R E AT I N G A C O M M U N I T Y OF INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE USING A SPECTRUM MODEL APPROACH TO CAMPUS CONFLICT Jennifer Meyer Schrage and Monita C. Thompson Nothing is black or white. – Nelson Mandela

Introduction With the frame of Inclusive Excellence, the Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) encourages higher education institutions to embrace the power of diversity as an asset that drives learning, creativity, relevance and strategic improvement (Williams et al., 2005). The AAC&U recognizes that to be excellent, an institution must be inclusive; and to be inclusive, an organization must innovate and transform to be truly diverse, relevant, and equitable to everyone (every student, faculty, and staff member). This frame of inclusive excellence shifts the paradigm entirely. It makes clear that if a tradition, policy, or practice serves only the dominant group, it must be revised. Everyone matters. If the system is not working for all, then it is not reaching full potential. With this frame, a leader understands that (regardless of cost, convenience, and comfort) necessary renovation and change in service of promoting a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive

101

102 responding to conflict on campus    campus paves the way to lasting institutional success and optimal delivery on the educational mission. This has never been more true than in a decade demarcated by the ongoing health, community, and economic impact of a pandemic and international uprising calling for racial justice. In chapter 1, Giacomini and Schrage introduce the framework of inclusive conflict excellence to describe the importance of balancing the social, restorative, transformative, and procedural justice aims of our work. The introductory chapters in this book affirm this idea of inclusive conflict excellence, noticing the complexity of the current climate calls educators to reinforce their commitment to student learning and development, community safety, social justice, and inclusion as foundational pillars of successful campus conflict work. Now, more than ever, inclusive conflict excellence inspires institutions to innovate and transform their response to campus conflict and conduct incidents to model diplomacy, intercultural engagement, multipartiality, expanded online service delivery, and creative win-win outcomes. With this chapter, we offer a model solution to conflict and conduct management that challenges a one-size-fits-all standardization approach and replaces it with a model that is both inclusive and excellent. We propose that (now more than ever) diversity, relevance, learning, and equity call for campuses to embrace an integrated continuum of conflict management pathways, or a full spectrum of resolution options (Schrage & Thompson, 2008). We explain the principle concept that inspired the spectrum of resolution options (or spectrum model ; Schrage & Thompson, 2008). We then provide an overview of the spectrum model and its pathways. Next, we examine how the spectrum model improves learning and climate and respects social justice and intercultural competence. We then discuss practical application considerations and highlight the necessary system changes associated with the spectrum model approach.

The Starting Point We developed the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) to challenge educators to design more inclusive incident response procedures in a way that preserves what Schrage calls the magic real estate associated with a conflict. Magic real estate describes the space between an incident and the selected resolution pathway. Often, it is in this space that the greatest potential exists for use of educational, effective, creative, flexible, restorative, and socially just resolution methods. Here, the incident remains in pure form, a simple conflict. No formal set of structures or standards yet exists to restrict

creating a community of inclusive excellence  

103

the space for the stories of those involved to be shared and honored. The parties are simply individuals in a dispute, rather than carrying the labels of complainant and respondent or accused and victim. This space is large enough for many perspectives and various framings of issues. Finding a third truth through mediation, or other forms of conflict resolution, remains an option. Once a disputant moves beyond this magic real estate and parties decide to bypass other informal venues to file a complaint under a formal process, the stakes are higher. Rather than a conflict, the incident is now framed as an alleged violation of policy. As is appropriate, a set of due process measures and related systems are triggered. Issues are framed, allegations are made, the story is told, and a win-lose scenario unfolds. The respondent or accused begins the process by responding to another’s narrative. From the start, it is more likely to be a defensive, competitive, punitive, and restrictive forum. In the end, all parties will be less likely to have gained a full and authentic perspective and understanding of the other’s experience. The spectrum model approach assumes that a majority of incidents on campus can be managed through alternative (also referred to as appropriate or adaptive) conflict resolution methods where parties are presented with a menu of options and a review of their rights before being asked to articulate their story. The need for formal resolution by adjudication for certain incidents will always exist. Often legalistic and highly structured, however, such a venue need not be a first resort, but should be reserved for cases with the potential for the most significant consequences against a student. This understanding of the spectrum’s framework is critical to understanding and implementing the model.

Overview of the Spectrum Model The spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) offers a variety of ­pathways for conflict management as part of a continuum (see Figure 4.1). Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, the spectrum provides educators appropriate flexibility in working with students, faculty, and staff as they seek to resolve an incident. Further, this flexibility can come into play at any point in the institutional process prescribed for managing a conflict or conduct incident, as explained later in this chapter. The formalism currently associated with the conduct process respects an important guiding principle: Student conduct administration must not be arbitrary. Yet, student affairs educators continue to explore and develop procedures in an effort to find the ideal balance between implementing fair process and maintaining learning outcomes. Between arbitrary case

104   

responding to conflict on campus

Figure 4.1.  Schrage and Thompson’s spectrum model for inclusive conflict excellence.

Adjudication (Formal hearing)

Adjudication (Informal)

Shuttle diplomacy

Restorative practices

Mediation

Facilitated dialogue

Conflict coaching

Formal

Dialogue

No conflict management

Informal

Social and Restorative Justice Foundation

Built upon existing commitment to procedural and transformative justice Note. Schrage and Thompson (2008).

management and legalistic procedures that inhibit learning and inclusion stands the spectrum model. The spectrum model is an intentional, deliberate, and thoughtful educational approach aimed at increasing access and improving student learning. It provides a framework for student affairs educators to return to individualized incident management that is focused on learning, student development, and the unique needs of involved parties. This model provides language and guidelines to further campus conversations that might develop more progressive and diverse conflict management processes and draws from multiple pathways, skill sets, and tools that may already be part of the toolbox on many campuses in informal ways. The types of incidents that can occur on campus are as unique as the individuals involved. The in-person and online solutions provided for resolution should also be as sophisticated as the people and the problems involved in the conflict. To this end, the pathways of the spectrum model follow those often outlined in the field of conflict and law and range from informal to formal, promoting resolution at the lowest levels possible. These pathways include the following:

creating a community of inclusive excellence  

105

1. No conflict management: Administration intentionally refrains from initiating involvement in a campus conflict to make space for student learning achieved by direct and independent engagement in an emerging issue. 2. Dialogue: Students engage in a conversation to gain understanding or to manage a conflict independent of administrator intervention or third-party facilitation. 3. Conflict coaching : Students seek counsel and guidance from administration to engage a conflict more effectively and independently. 4. Facilitated dialogue: Students access administration for facilitation services to engage in a conversation to gain understanding or to manage a conflict. In a facilitated dialogue, parties maintain ownership of decisions concerning the conversation or any resolution of a conflict. 5. Mediation: Students access administration to serve as a third party to coordinate a structured session aimed at resolving a conflict and/ or constructing a go-forward or future story for the parties involved. 6. Restorative practices (e.g., conferences, circles, and boards): Through a diversion program or as an addition to the adjudication process, administration provides space and facilitation services for students taking ownership for harmful behavior and those parties affected by the behavior to jointly construct an agreement to restore community. 7. Shuttle diplomacy (or negotiation): Administration actively negotiates an agreement between two parties who do not wish to directly engage with one another. This method may be an alternative to a formal adjudication process or part of the process associated with the conduct code. 8. Adjudication (informal resolution): Using the process outlined in conduct policy, administration meets with the accused student to resolve the incident. An informal resolution is achieved when the student accepts responsibility and agrees to fulfill ordered sanctions. A discipline record is kept of any code violations. 9. Adjudication (formal resolution): Using the process outlined in the conduct policy, administration facilitates a formal process that includes a hearing. A third party (panel, staff member, or external adjudicator) determines whether a conduct code violation occurred and issues sanctions in the case. A discipline record is kept of any code violations. An introduction to the varied conflict management pathways is provided in the chapters that follow.

106   

responding to conflict on campus

The Continuum The spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008; see Figure 4.1) is conceptualized as a continuum that ranges from least to most formalized and from which pathways are selected. Interest-based process options are found on the left, and rights-based options are among the most formalized on the right. On the left end of the spectrum there is minimal structure or little to no thirdparty involvement (no conflict management, conflict coaching, or dialogue). For disputants on these pathways, their primary objective centers on simply being heard rather than finding a violation of policy. In such cases, a disputant may request no formal intervention by campus staff but rather conflict coaching to initiate and engage in a dialogue that is independent of formal involvement by administrators. The advantage to students using processes in this area of the spectrum model is that they can feel empowered to resolve conflicts on their own while learning and practicing important life skills. As educators, our goals include student development and learning; giving students the option to take leadership and control over their own lives, especially in difficult situations that do not rise to a significant violation. In addition, if the conflict is not resolved at this level, students have the option of involving administrators through more formal avenues along the spectrum model. Moving to the center of the spectrum, the response becomes more structured and involves third-party facilitators (facilitated dialogue, mediation, or restorative justice practices). Candidates for these pathways will be involved in incidents that call for more structure to decide how to move forward. Parties, however, may each articulate a priority commitment to maintain a healthy relationship with friends, colleagues, or a student group. In such cases, constructing a mutually beneficial agreement through mediation or a restorative justice circle to resolve conflict is more desirable than triggering a formal process that risks an adversarial experience, leaves the conflict unresolved, and may result in a discipline record. Since many conflicts have an impact beyond the disputants (often witnessed by others or they affect a particular student community), using restorative practices can allow for all those affected to participate in the community-building process. On the right end of the spectrum pathways are highly structured and prescribed. Adjudication presents two useful pathways, including the informal resolution by agreement and the formal resolution by hearing (also known as adjudication). Parties accessing these pathways and/or the incidents involved call for a more conventional and restrained process and seek/ or include formal and documented findings. Parties using adjudication likely desire minimal direct contact with one another and are less concerned with a future relationship. Pathways on this end of the spectrum are most familiar

creating a community of inclusive excellence  

107

to student affairs educators as they represent the fundamentals of student conduct practice. From one end of the spectrum to the other, each individual pathway offers valuable and relevant conflict resolution tools for today’s student affairs educator. This model does not preference one pathway over another. Rather, the spectrum model reminds educators of the full continuum of options available and encourages practitioners to use all of them. Effective educators tailor their response to campus conflict by considering individual needs of the parties involved, including their developmental phases, cultural norms, learning styles, and social identity lenses. The spectrum model offers more options to support this intentional response. The model also provides flexibility for administrators and parties involved by allowing for a change of course in the resolution process.

Supporting Just and Restorative Learning Outcomes Through the Spectrum Model In addition to understanding each pathway offered on the spectrum menu, practitioners must appreciate that best practice implementation of the model requires use of an inclusive conflict excellence frame, building on the field’s existing transformative and procedural justice commitments and calling for adding a social justice and restorative justice orientation. This means that in addition to student learning, the model stands on a foundational assumption that the purpose of the conflict and conduct management process is (a) ensuring a just and inclusive campus for all community members by use of all available appropriate, creative, and flexible resolution methods, and (b) building and restoring the people and communities involved in and affected by harmful conduct and conflict. The model requires a shift away from punishment and a narrow win-lose framework. This shift is grounded in the theoretical principles reviewed in chapter 2 by Taylor and Varner and is bolstered by ongoing research in the field of education. In 2000 the Conflict Resolution Education Network, with the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Education, published groundbreaking research concerning the benefits of conflict resolution education in schools (Jones & Kmitta, 2000). The study focused on the K–12 environment and revealed substantial positive outcomes for students and educators. Research proved that adding conflict resolution education increases academic achievement and performance and assists classroom learning by improving interpersonal and intergroup relations and climate. The research concluded that conflict resolution teaches communication skills and self-control and increases self-esteem.

108 responding to conflict on campus    It further decreases aggressiveness, discipline referrals, suspension rates, and violent behavior (Jones & Kmitta, 2000). In 2016, researchers published results of a 2-year study of alternative dispute resolution practices in higher education with a focus on use of the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) and identified 100 institutions using the approach, concluding that ADR practices mirror some of the most important widely proclaimed values, missions and visions of higher education and offer some responses to critics of higher education that question its benefits to individuals and society. Greater use of ADR principles and procedures offer educators a model for promoting individuals’ capacities and responsibilities for making decisions that affect their lives and others, reinforces the healing power of empathy, understanding and forgiveness, and relies more on voluntary cooperation rather than power and coercion. (Katz & Kovack, 2016, p. 32)

Using a spectrum model approach with multiple resolution pathways is not only a more inclusive way to process campus conflicts and incidents but also an important form of providing conflict resolution education and modeling on a college campus and its extended online community. Providing the option to draw from a continuum of conflict resolution methods on the front end provides students (and staff and faculty) with a moment to reflect and reframe an incident as they consider creative and constructive win-win scenarios to a conflict. This differs from traditional adjudication models that by nature characterize one party being right and the other wrong. It further improves student engagement throughout a process by empowering parties to drive decisions around resolution and restoration following a conflict.

Making All Students Matter The educational benefits of conflict resolution as a learning and modeling experience through the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) have important implications for diverse campus populations. Participants in a conflict resolution process have an opportunity to improve their capacity for empathy, understanding of others’ perspectives, increased appreciation for diversity, and practicing tolerance (Jones, 2002). Increasing these competencies within the larger student population may likely improve the campus experience for often marginalized communities. Just as important, offering a spectrum model approach positively affects all student communities by improving access. In sum, the spectrum model improves access to just and relevant conflict resolution for all students by the following:

creating a community of inclusive excellence  

109

1. Countering potentially oppressive institutional systems by offering pathways that do not involve the formal process or rules that were crafted by and reflect the values of the dominant campus culture(s) but are not respectful of the needs of some communities 2. Expanding methods and venues for engaging in conflict resolution to be more inclusive of the conflict cultures of various communities and identities on campus 3. Providing methods and venues that allow participants to go beneath the surface of an incident to consider the context of the conflict and oppressive dynamics that may have contributed to the incident

Oppressive Systems and the Campus Conflict Resolution Process In chapter 3, Holmes, Edwards, King, and DeBowes present an overview of social justice concepts and the potential implications for conduct and conflict work, asserting that justice is not blind and context matters for our students and those facilitating conduct and conflict processes. Hardiman et al. (2007) also provide an overview of the foundations for social justice education. These works offer provocative foundational considerations for the field of conduct administration and challenge student affairs educators to consider the well-documented proposition that culture is defined by standards and norms that benefit those with the most power and privilege in society. In fact, Hardiman et al. (2007) assert that “social institutions such as . . . education . . . are major participants in a system of oppression” (p. 40) by codifying oppression in laws, policies, practices, and norms. Even more compelling, the authors propose that society’s cultural norms and patterns perpetuate implicit and explicit values that bind institutions and individuals. . . . In an oppressive society, the cultural perspective of dominant groups is imposed on institutions by individuals and on individuals by institutions. These cultural norms include philosophies of life, definitions of good and evil, beauty, normal, health, deviances, sickness, and perspectives on time, just to name a few. (­p. 40)

Bearing all this in mind, if the campus conduct policy is meant to embody institutional values, and the practices and processes associated with the policy reflect such values, we must stop and ask, Whose values are they? Who was at the table when that list of values was decided? Who was not? For many campuses, the conduct policy may indeed be a living and breathing document authored by their community and evolved over time to

110 responding to conflict on campus    reflect the current cultures and populations on campus. For others, this is not the case. Hardiman et al. (2007) provide a sobering reminder of our responsibilities as developers of education policy. Ongoing resources, however slim, must be committed to campus conduct and conflict management programs to allow staff to devote time and energy to creating and sustaining inclusive, relevant, best practice procedures that meet the changing needs of their unique communities.

Accounting for Various Conflict Cultures and Social Identities The spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) approach deconstructs the real or perceived institutional system of oppression by providing relevant and accessible options that ensure that all students matter and that they feel they matter in salient ways. In chapter 1, we learned that campuses are more diverse than ever before, and with an increasingly diverse campus comes a variety of social identities, conflict styles, and cultural norms. Further, the intersectionality of many social identities and multiple cultures within one individual increases the need for flexible conflict-engagement methods tailored to the needs of individuals and adapted to be relevant to all learning environments (inside and ­outside the classroom and online). By providing a diverse array of approaches, the spectrum model promises improved and broader student engagement in the conduct and conflict resolution process. Because it meets parties where they are, rather than demanding that they conform to a uniform, structured, often adversarial disciplinary process, the spectrum model approach minimizes marginalization. The spectrum affirms identities and cultural communities that reside in today’s higher education institutions. It acknowledges different perceptions and experiences by providing a range of options and is therefore more inclusive. Figure 4.2 illustrates how social identity and culture are relevant to conduct and conflict resolution pathways. Some individuals may gravitate toward more informal venues. Others may find comfort in process and structure. For some communities, pathways that do not represent or reinforce the power of the larger institution may be more attractive—especially if they or those within their community place less trust in the system because of prior individual experiences of discrimination in the institution. Contrast this experience with students whose life experiences resonate with the systemic power structure and have garnered positive encounters that have reinforced their perception that they will be heard and understood. For the latter, speaking in a formal hearing and the traditional procedures associated with the

creating a community of inclusive excellence  

111

adjudication process may be more comfortable. For certain, and as noted in previous chapters and discussed later in this chapter, no pathway is a panacea fully insulated from the oppressive dynamics experienced by students and the larger community. In all cases, accessibility, equity, inclusion, and systemic capacity are linked directly to a facilitator’s skills and awareness. Figure 4.2 illustrates how individual cultural values may inform pathway selection. The role of how culture informs conflict style is well documented. In a case where both parties in a conflict come from a culture that traditionally values harmony or community over the individual, adjudication or related formal procedures will be less relevant than mediation or a restorative justice pathway. Alternatively, if notions of justice within an individual’s culture center on findings of violations and sanctions, filing a complaint and obtaining affirmation through a formal process may provide solace. Adding to the complexity of effective conflict resolution programming is the likelihood that identity and culture will also intersect and matter in different ways depending on the incident or conflict at issue. As it relates to the implementation of the spectrum model, it is important to consider that the broad dichotomies offered by Figure 4.2 are general guidelines rather than rules that can lead to inaccurate assumptions.

Figure 4.2.  Social justice analysis of conflict resolution.

Less formal

More formal

Emphasis on Community/Harmony

Emphasis on Individual/Rights

“Disputants”

“Accuser” Versus “Accused”

High-Context Cultures Parties Control Outcome

Low-Context Cultures Outcome Controlled by Third Party(s)

Party Focused Less Punitive Counter Narrative Resonates With Marginalized Cultures Challenges Status Quo Note. Developed by J.M. Schrage and M.C. Thompson.

Results Focused More Punitive Dominant Narrative Resonates With Dominant Culture Maintains Status Quo

112   

responding to conflict on campus

The Value of Stories Adjudication under a conduct or related behavior policy often imposes formality and procedure that inhibits storytelling. An adjudication-only approach limits access to those alleging incidents that assert a violation of the policy. Allegations of “bias” (that do not describe misconduct under a policy) are often denied access to any services or process in a system that uses an adjudicationonly model. For those matters that do proceed to adjudication, the threat of a policy violation, a discipline record, and sanctions are all in play as parties seek to resolve conflict within the formal process. With such dynamics, it is unlikely that parties will have an opportunity to consider, explore, or voice the larger context of their conflict. For many students, especially those in marginalized communities, this removes what may be to them the core of the conflict. It labels what is most relevant as irrelevant. Offering a spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) approach offers participants venues and methods that allow for deeper analysis of issues and for a larger conversation to occur.

Considering Oppression Dynamics in the Implementation of the Spectrum Model Practitioners must consider how social justice concepts inform implementation of the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008). In other words, in striving to be more accessible and inclusive, we must be not only self-conscious about what we offer students but also intentional about how we do it. What training and development do we need? We cannot teach what we don’t know and therefore it is imperative that anyone involved in the implementation of the spectrum model be well versed in social justice education practice, an inclusive excellence framework, and the multiple pathways (or at the very least, the one with which they are involved). Offering a variety of conflict management pathways in conjunction with adjudication does not guarantee access and inclusion. Jones (2002) revealed notable gaps when it comes to diversity. Jones’s work revealed that conflict resolution educators do not focus sufficiently on the needs of diverse populations or issues of class and socioeconomic status when it comes to shaping curriculum. They indicated that many programs do not pay adequate attention to structural issues and bias within the conflict resolution systems themselves. However, as represented in Figure 4.3, programs that do focus on bias issues in systems can improve intergroup relations and promote more just campus communities (Jones & Kmitta, 2000). The expansive influence of implicit bias in the implementation of student conduct processes (as well as law enforcement, job interviews, and many

creating a community of inclusive excellence  

113

Figure 4.3.  Balancing justice on campus.

ive Inclus t conflic nce e ll e c ex

Opp

ress

ion

Race privileg e

Social

justice Class privileg e

Multi-p

artiality

Gende r privileg e

Note. Developed by J.M. Schrage.

other institutional systems throughout society) continues to be repeatedly documented in numerous research studies (Eberhardt, 2019). At the same time, these studies reveal that the implementation of basic strategies can assist individuals in noticing and managing the negative impact of implicit bias. These strategies (Eberhardt, 2019) include the following: 1. Training 2. Exposure to diversity 3. Time for individual reflection before action 4. System transparency and external accountability through ongoing review of decisions by others In addition to a facilitator’s implicit bias, oppression dynamics also influence the conflict resolution experience, regardless of the pathway selected (Wing & Marya, 2007). In implementing the spectrum model approach, practitioners should consider the following approaches to account for

114 responding to conflict on campus    oppression dynamics in how they facilitate and in determining what pathways should be offered (Wing & Marya, 2007): 1. Use multipartiality or “favor all” (help all participants with their needs so that all stories may be told). This concept is discussed at length in chapter 3. 2. Notice and seek to understand the asymmetry that exists between parties. 3. Consider the momentum or distraction the facilitator’s social identity brings to the process. 4. Take responsibility for actively equalizing power, when necessary. 5. Make social identity available as a topic. 6. Understand that context is always relevant. 7. Emphasize creating a safe space. When facilitators do not understand or respect these guiding strategies, the informality that dialogue, mediation, or a restorative justice circle offers can actually result in, rather than respond effectively to, marginalization. On the surface, an issue may appear to be resolved, when in fact, the needs, voice, and/or issues of one or more parties involved were unintentionally silenced by the process (Wing & Rifkin, 2001). This can happen when momentum is given to one story based on the influence of the facilitator (and their identity) or when one party dominates the “airtime” in the process (Wing & Marya, 2007). For example, consider the person who is selected to speak first. Research indicates that over 80% of mediation agreements are built around the first speaker’s narrative of the issues (Rifkin et al., 1991). Where resources and competencies deny the opportunity to fully embrace these strategies, parties (especially marginalized communities) may actually fare better in a formal resolution process with basic due process rights and structure (e.g., protected speaking time) offered by this venue. As conflict resolution is infused more broadly in response models, educators must remain intentional in exploring these issues. Another consideration for facilitators using the inclusive conflict excellence lens in implementation of the spectrum model approach is appropriate respect for and full consideration of First Amendment cautions associated with social justice initiatives and programs. The 2018 publication The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018) paints a dystopian picture of the modern college experience by highlighting inclusive campus policies and practices aimed at improving climate as

creating a community of inclusive excellence  

115

inappropriate overreactions that overprotect students. The book catalogs institutional attempts to appropriately manage controversial, and sometimes violent, provocateurs as free speech violators (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018). While many of the episodes put forward in the publication are presented without context, the book makes the case for the need for highly trained, intelligent, sophisticated, diverse, and strategic leadership and ­decision-making in the implementation of campus climate and social justice initiatives. Facilitators must be mature and highly competent, and, even then, they must be provided with thorough training, oversight, guidance, and institutional support. While the spectrum model’s use of the inclusive conflict excellence lens triggers appropriate caution, the approach also offers significant reinforcement and protection of First Amendment rights on campus. By applying a spectrum model approach not all cases and conflicts must go through a behavior policy or conduct process. Incidents involving allegations of bias that fall short of harassment may be addressed in a space that is party driven and purely educational, such as offering robust support to the offended individual through conflict coaching or inviting all parties to voluntarily participate in mediation, facilitated dialogue or shuttle diplomacy. Such pathways can involve no threats of discipline or related measures that may chill free speech rights.

A Party-Driven Process Practitioners using the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) should understand that parties to a conflict and not the potential existence of a technical policy violation drive pathway selection. For example, parties accusing one another of what they are calling harassment may be offered and may select mediation as the most appropriate pathway for resolution. Important ethical and legal considerations must inform the facilitation of such a case. However, the existence of a potential violation would not disqualify the case from resolution via a pathway that does not involve the conduct policy’s adjudication process—assuming both parties agree to that approach. In other words, forcing an incident to fit a policy definition or formal process is not always necessary or effective, especially if that is not desirable for or in the best interest of the parties. This party-driven approach assumes all parties, including faculty and staff, are required to take an active role in the resolution of their complaint or conflict or request for services for a case to proceed. The parties, not the conduct office staff, drive the resolution process.

116   

responding to conflict on campus

Parties are not the only ones that benefit from the options provided by a spectrum approach. Without a full spectrum of pathways, administrators find themselves with insufficient processes to fully resolve campus conflicts or offer an effective educational moment to the students involved. Too often, policies are written in a way that paint practitioners into a corner, using standardization in an attempt to provide clarity and manage risk. In a onesize-fits-all approach, free speech concerns might make a disciplinary process inappropriate and leave a harmed or targeted party with no recourse. Even worse, such limitations might result in marginalization when a harmed party is disciplined because the conduct policy classifies their behavior as a violation, and yet campus policy remains silent on the harmful behavior of the other party involved in the incident. Thus, while parties are empowered to choose their own resolution pathways and drive the processes designed to result in win-win outcomes, administrators are equally equipped with nondisciplinary processes tailored to the needs of all parties and responsive to the unique characteristics of each student and conflict.

How to Incorporate the Spectrum Pathways The spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) can be implemented physically and virtually on any campus committed to inclusive conflict excellence. However, administrators attempting to introduce the model to a campus leadership team that does not hold diversity, equity, inclusion, and an educational approach as foundational priorities will experience resistance as such teams will likely prefer less complicated traditional conduct management approaches. Assuming a common campus commitment to inclusive conflict excellence, the spectrum model pathways can be implemented in a variety of ways aligned with campus resources, existing infrastructure, and staff capacity. A centralized intake for all student conflict and conduct matters is recommended. One well-trained unit staff team should serve as the initial “triage” location to ensure a consistent referral process to proper pathways for resolutions (often this will likely be a conduct office or dean of students unit). Campuses may determine that the unit tasked with implementing the existing conduct policy’s more formal process should also provide the services associated with each of the other non-disciplinary avenues in response to an incident. In this approach, a paid staff team (student and professional staff ) located in a conduct office are trained and dedicated to facilitating the alternative pathways. Another option may be for the alternative pathways to be facilitated by other administrative units across campus or in partnership

creating a community of inclusive excellence  

117

with academic programs and clinics, such as, but not limited to, the following examples: Conflict coaching = Office of the Ombudsperson Facilitated dialogue = Office for Student Organization Leadership Mediation = Law school (Alternative Dispute Resolution Clinic or as part of a mediation course) Restorative processes = School of Social Work (a trained graduate student cohort) Shuttle diplomacy = School of Education (a trained graduate student cohort) In addition to organizational infrastructure considerations, the campus community will need to renovate existing conduct policies to name alternative dispute and restorative resolutions as appropriate and preferred pathways for addressing incidents on campus. The spectrum model pathways may be named as viable pathways as a prelude to the conduct code process. The policy may also affirm that these pathways may be offered as part of a diversion from the formal process after it has been triggered. Finally, the spectrum model pathways may be added to the menu of sanction options offered at the conclusion of a conduct case.

Prelude to the Process The spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) pathways may be offered as services prior to the filing of a complaint or at the initiation of the disciplinary process. Using this approach requires staff to implement robust, focused, and careful intake procedures following an incident or in response to a request for services. As with magic real estate, appreciating the concept of structural determinism is central to using the spectrum as a prelude to the adjudication or disciplinary process.

The Intake Process: How Response Procedures Structurally Determine Outcomes To take full advantage of magic real estate, the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) approach asks institutions to evaluate current intake processes to consider whether systems unnecessarily structurally determine that most conflicts will be resolved in a formal adjudication process. Borrowed

118 responding to conflict on campus    from critical race theory, the concept of structural determinism may be explained as the unintentional or intentional collusion with oppression in society by system administrators who ignore dynamics that often result in a disparate impact on certain groups and set up unearned benefits and outcomes for other participants (Delgado, 1995). In this context, structural determinism applies to the obvious or hidden dynamics at play in incident response policy and procedures that force all or most incidents into a formal adjudication process—and leave the responding student with a disciplinary record. In other cases, the intake process may unintentionally or intentionally designate certain incidents as inappropriate or unqualified for services (e.g., if it doesn’t allege a violation, the policy doesn’t allow engagement). In Figure 4.4 a pattern or flow for all cases to follow is proposed as the remedy to systems that unintentionally eliminate the opportunity to increase access by using the alternative conflict resolution pathways offered in the spectrum model. As noted in the first phase in the figure, practitioners must implement thoughtful intake to take full advantage of the magic real estate. The purpose of this intake phase is not to hear the complaint or discuss the incident but rather to educate parties initiating services on the availability of spectrum model pathways. Parties initiating contact must first complete a “listening session” with a staff member to learn about the menu of conflict resolution options. Parties are also encouraged to consider and identify their true objectives and explore the options that best meet those objectives. At this phase, parties are also provided with resources (e.g., counseling) outside the conduct office should they wish to immediately discuss the incident with Figure 4.4.  Deconstructing structural determinism for inclusive conflict excellence. ACR PATHWAY(S)

Response practices, procedures, and policies structurally encourage space to: Pause. Think. Reflect. Consider.

No assumptions or labels

MAGIC REAL ESTATE

CONFLICT or INCIDENT

RESOLUTION

Shuttle Diplomacy

Mediation

Restorative Practices

Facilitated dialogue

Dialogue

Conflict coaching

Spectrum pathway options and process rights presented to parties individually

No conflict management

NO DISCIPLINE RECORD

INTAKE SESSION

AFTER intake session, party(s) may decide to file a complaint and allege violation(s) of policy

Party(s) may decide to divert from adjudication to ACR pathway or vice versa (as appropriate)

Adjudicator(s) may refer parties to ACR pathway as part of sanction phase (e.g. restorative justice circle)

Adjudication informal or formal

Response practices, procedures, and policies structurally discourage formalization at first stage of engagement

Note. Developed by J.M. Schrage.

DISCIPLINE RECORD FOR VIOLATIONS

creating a community of inclusive excellence  

119

BOX 4.1.

Case in Point

The director of the Conduct and Conflict Resolution Office is summoned to a meeting on Monday morning to discuss strategies to address a disruptive incident that occurred in the residence halls over the weekend. A group of students was involved in an argument that resulted in a “tussle.” Apparently, the disputants made allegations of harassment against one another. Members of the group individually report that there has been ongoing tension and disputes throughout the year. The group is made up of some students who are members of the Arab Student Association and others who are members of the Jewish Student Association.

someone who can provide support, advice, or advocacy. During this intake phase, participants are also advised of their process rights. Parties who agree to an alternative pathway in place of triggering the discipline process directly enter those pathways. If such efforts are unsuccessful or if all parties do not agree to the use of the pathway, parties may always return to filing a complaint that triggers the adjudication process. Part of preserving this space as a valid option is the commitment to confidentiality. Information shared in an attempted but unsuccessful mediation or other pathway cannot later be used or quoted in the adjudication process. To understand the importance of the intake phase, consider the scenario in Box 4.1. Using this scenario, consider the potential outcomes of a conflict management process that begins with a staff member and/or one of the parties naming the incident as a formal policy violation that results in sending a charge letter to each student involved. Compare the likely outcome of this adjudication approach with a process that provides all parties (staff and students) with individual sessions to offer a variety of venues to engage and resolve this conflict. In the latter approach, it is more likely that parties may bypass the adjudication option and instead directly enter a pathway such as a facilitated dialogue, mediation, or a restorative justice circle that encourages fuller examination of the issues and provides a timely response to the conflict. If unsuccessful, parties maintain the right to enter adjudication. To further understand the value of careful intake and the spectrum model as prelude to triggering a formal process, consider the scenario in Box 4.2. In Box 4.2, the behavior reported does not rise to a policy violation. In a case where the campus approach to conflict is limited to allegations of policy violations or related formalized protocols, the focus of the conversation with the reporting student would be explaining that no viable pathway

120   

responding to conflict on campus

BOX 4.2.

Case in Point

A student reports that they feel unwelcome and uncomfortable in their residence hall. They explain that every day they exit their room they are faced with some sort of offensive quote on the whiteboard on their neighbor’s door. The quotes always feel targeted at their identity group. They are asking about discipline options and how to file a bias complaint against their neighbor. Images of the statements on the whiteboard indicate the quotes focus on the #MeToo movement and feminism and often refer to “all White males” as oppressors. A week later, in a different residence hall, another student complains of anti-gay messages on a neighbor’s whiteboard and wants to pursue a bias claim. This time, the images of the messages are of religious text. exists to constructively address the situation. For a campus using a spectrum model approach, the reporting student could be offered robust and specialized support by referral to the conflict coaching pathway. A trained educator serving as a conflict coach could assist the student with identifying their needs and goals and encourage the student to determine their next steps from a place of personal empowerment. Following this coaching session, the student may decide to directly engage the neighbor in a sensitive and productive way and/or seek support to invite the other student to participate in mediation, facilitated dialogue, or a shuttle diplomacy session. In this case, the spectrum model provides ways to say yes to students, offer support, and then encourage them to drive their own experience rather than looking to policy or authority to intervene. Just as important, offering a visible inclusive process and framework beyond discipline that provides alternative pathways builds a stronger community because it encourages more students to come forward to express concerns instead of avoiding conflict and allowing tensions to escalate to a breaking point.

A Diversion From the Discipline Process In addition to or instead of using the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) as a prelude to adjudication, pathways may be introduced as part of the discipline process through a diversion clause in the conduct policy. This would mean that a traditional application of the disciplinary process would proceed, with the caveat that parties may at any time in the process choose to attempt an alternative spectrum model pathway. As with the prelude

creating a community of inclusive excellence  

121

BOX 4.3.

Case in Point

A student art installation is destroyed by two students and the incident is recorded on a security camera. After the student artist files a complaint under the behavior policy, the responding students assert that they destroyed the artwork in protest because they experienced it as racist. The student artist is horrified that the artwork had this unintended impact. approach, if parties opt for less formal conflict resolution but are unable to resolve the conflict using the alternative pathway, the case may return to the adjudication process. Consider the usefulness of a diversion approach in the example in Box 4.3. In this case, following the intake, both the complaining and responding students may request a restorative justice or healing circle as an alternative pathway. The responding students are interested in a venue where they can take ownership for what happened without threat of a discipline record. The student artist feels a healing circle is better suited for the situation and desires an opportunity to understand and learn about the unintended impact of the artwork and to directly apologize for it. The artist also wants to explain the personal toll on an artist when their work is destroyed. With a diversion clause in the policy and a staff team trained to offer and carefully facilitate a robust restorative pathway option through a lens of inclusive conflict excellence, all parties learn and take responsibility for their role in the incident and are provided with the opportunity to repair harm and move forward. A system without such tools would leave parties with two unproductive options: “drop” the complaint or pursue discipline against the responding students, neither of which facilitates learning and restoration.

A Sanctioning Tool Finally, the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) may be incorporated in the campus conduct process by simply adding the pathways as options in the sanctioning stage of adjudication. The nature of an incident may require a formal structure to process it fairly and for findings to be ­documented. At the end of the process, however, parties and facilitators may determine that the process has not fully resolved the conflict. In such a case, the staff or students serving as hearing officers or panelists may suggest participation in one of the less formal spectrum model pathways. The case in Box 4.4 suggests how the spectrum model may be applied at the sanctioning stage.

122   

responding to conflict on campus

BOX 4.4.

Case in Point

Early one evening a campus security officer witnesses a student standing in the inner quadrangle of the residence hall courtyard burning a personal item. By the time the security officer approaches the student, the item is no longer burning. The student (an international student) explains that they were performing a ritual out of respect for a family member who passed away. The security officer reports the incident to the housing department. Because this appears to be a violation of a fire regulation, the matter is referred to the Office of Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution for handling. A campus demanding strict enforcement of fire codes because of past experiences involving safety risks to students may need to fully adjudicate the case and make formal findings. However, the adjudicator may also recognize the need for involved parties to understand and appreciate the perspective of the international student. As a result, a facilitated dialogue or mediation may be recommended for the parties to jointly construct a set of plans to ensure space is available for spiritual or related rituals of all cultures and that students (especially international students) are provided with an orientation that educates them about relevant, but possibly unfamiliar policies, and specifies appropriate areas for conducting these activities.

Special Program Development Considerations Responsible innovation requires educators to be thoughtful and intentional with program development. Important legal and ethical boundaries must be identified and observed as institutions consider how best to incorporate the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) on campus. Introducing the model or its pathways without a deliberate review of how it complements or contradicts current institutional policies, practices, and positions will make programs unsustainable and vulnerable to challenges and will ultimately fail in garnering support or in implementation. Educators interested in implementing the spectrum model pathways must consult with their community, leadership, and legal counsel in exploring the value and applicability of the model in their campus’s context. The campus ombudsperson office, law school clinic, college of education, and many other units across campus share a mission and commitment to inclusive conflict management for students. In collaboration with invested partners

creating a community of inclusive excellence  

123

across campus, teams can build creative implementation models suited to their community’s needs.

Conclusion When Schrage interviewed to join the Student Life team at University of Michigan (U-M) she proposed a new vision for conduct and conflict work on campus: “Build Trust, Promote Justice and Teach Peace.” Working toward this vision, we codeveloped and implemented the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) with partner units and leadership in Student Life. U-M’s mission is all about global and inclusive graduates, with a commitment to develop citizens and leaders who use their education to change the world. In alignment with this mission, our institution created an ecosystem for innovation and support for the spectrum model—recognizing that students introduced to a different way to “do conflict” are more likely to become global and inclusive graduates. The relevance of the spectrum model is not limited to any one type of campus. In fact, the educational mission and diverse student needs of most every academic institution demand a conflict response model that exhibits nonbinary thinking and the capacity to embrace the full range of creative win-win solutions required for addressing increasingly complex conflicts in a divided world. Introducing a spectrum model approach requires the courage and foresight to step out from beneath a system of standardization to honor the stories and cultures of all students. For some campuses, this approach may not be comfortable nor convenient and critics will argue that it is too costly. These critiques fail to appreciate the power of inclusive excellence, that a system that is not meeting the educational needs of students is limiting its potential (at best) and (at worst) is unsustainable and will soon become irrelevant. Likewise, limited resources as a prohibition against innovation is always a false narrative. An important goal of higher education is to prepare students for living and working in a complex society. Empowering students to learn and develop conflict management skills as critical tools for life means institutions need to be flexible and innovative in providing these opportunities. In the 10 years since its introduction, campuses across the country and of all sizes and types have adjusted their systems to infuse spectrum model pathways into their processes (Katz & Kovack, 2016). In partnership with colleagues across campus and with community stakeholders, these institutions have shifted from punitive to restorative approaches and developed creative and innovative models with viable and inclusive alternative dispute resolution options aligned with their educational missions.

124   

responding to conflict on campus

In 1993, Nelson Mandela was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. His legacy was the transformation of a divided nation suffering from hate and exclusion to one of peace and democracy. Despite experiencing profound injustice and 27 years of political imprisonment, Mandela renounced violence and retaliation. He led a movement for forgiveness and progress through establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to address human rights violations. More now than ever, with the ongoing ripple effects of systemic racism and a widespread health and economic catastrophe, our future is calling out for such global and inclusive leadership devoted to social and restorative justice in the face of conflict and crisis. Higher education institutional responses to conflict, crisis, and change teach and shape graduates. Graduates become citizens and future leaders. Every student counts. Every experience matters. Every story should be heard. It is time our systems transform to embrace and include them wherever they may gather.

Summary Higher education institutional missions and a more global context require student conduct and conflict management practitioners be equipped with a full continuum of conflict resolution options to address today’s increasingly complex campus incidents. The spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) approach offers communities a variety of pathways for addressing student conflict in ways that facilitate improved learning and development through the added lens of inclusive conflict excellence. Focusing on a commitment to inclusive conflict excellence, this chapter demonstrates the importance of systems renovation and policy change for institutions seeking to be relevant and effective in meeting the educational needs of today’s students and equipping tomorrow’s leaders with the ability to contribute in and create a more diverse, inclusive, and equitable world.

Questions for Reflection and Dialogue 1. What is the definition of inclusive excellence? Social justice? Restorative justice? 2. What is (and what should be) the primary purpose of student conduct and conflict management? 3. Which pathways on the spectrum model are more informal and interest based? Which pathways are more formal and rights based?

creating a community of inclusive excellence  

125

4. This chapter opens with a quote from Nelson Mandela that asserts “nothing is black or white.” How does the quote inform the name of the spectrum model? Why did Schrage and Thompson use the color spectrum as a visual for a conflict management approach that aspires to be more socially just? 5. How does the spectrum model facilitate inclusive conflict excellence?

References Delgado, R. (1995). Critical race theory: The cutting edge. Temple University Press. Eberhardt, J. (2019). Biased: Uncovering the hidden prejudice that shapes what we see, think, and do. Viking. Hardiman, R., Jackson, B. W., & Griffin, P. (2007). Conceptual foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (2nd ed.) (pp. 35–66). Routledge. Jones, T. S. (2002). Proven benefits of conflict resolution education research. http:// www.creducation.net/resources/Proven_Benefits_of_CRE_Research.ppt Jones, T. S., & Kmitta, D. (Eds.). (2000). Does it work? The case for conflict resolution in our nation’s schools. Conflict Resolution Education Network. Katz, N. & Kovack, L. (2016). Higher education’s current state of alternative dispute resolution services for students. Journal of Conflict Management, 4(1), 5–37. Lukianoff, G. & Haidt, J. (2018). The coddling of the American mind: How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure. Penguin. Rifkin, J., Millen J., & Cobb S. (1991). Toward a new discourse for mediation: A critique of neutrality. Mediation Quarterly, 9(2), 151–165. Schrage, J. M., & Thompson, M. C. (2008, June). Using a social justice model for conflict resolution to ensure access for all students. Paper presented at the Donald D. Gehring Academy for Student Conduct Administration, Salt Lake City, UT. Williams, D., Berger, J. & McClendon, S. (2005). Toward a model of inclusive excellence and change in postsecondary institutions. Association for American Colleges & Universities. Wing, L., & Marya, D. (2007, May). Social justice mediation. Training session presented at the Social Justice Mediation Training, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Wing, L., & Rifkin, J. (2001). Racial identity development and the mediation of conflicts. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe & B. W. Jackson III (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development: A theoretical and practical anthology (pp. 182–208). New York University Press.

PA RT T W O PAT H WAY S W I T H I N T H E SPECTRUM MODEL

5 REVIVING DIALOGUE Jennifer Meyer Schrage and E. Royster Harper The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. –Socrates

Introduction More than 2,400 years ago, Socrates advised that the journey toward true knowledge and understanding begins with humility, personal curiosity, and the collective act of questioning in community with other learners. Today, this ability of students to engage in meaningful dialogue with other students, as well as with faculty and staff inside and outside of the classroom and independently online, represents the heart of democratic education and the key to learning (Dewey, 1916/2004). Changing cultural context is resulting in countless examples of a deterioration of constructive dialogue on the physical and virtual campus, and our institutions must strengthen this foundational element of the academy. In this chapter, we examine the current context and associated implications, review the concept of dialogue, and discuss the increased need for teaching students the value of and basic skills for how to engage in dialogue, independent of third-party facilitation or intervention by authority figures. We name dialogue as a cornerstone of democracy and therefore a “pillar” and a “pathway” of the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) approach to conflict education on campus. Finally, we review promising practices and innovative resources for improving and encouraging dialogue on campus.

Defining Dialogue In his pioneering book The Magic of Dialogue: Transforming Conflict into Cooperation, Daniel Yankelovich (1999) describes dialogue as simply a 129

130 pathways within the spectrum model    vehicle for gaining understanding. Inspired by Yankelovich’s framework, University of Michigan’s program on intergroup relations developed a comparison of dialogue to debate to further refine this concept for learners (see Table 5.1). In the original publication of Reframing Campus Conflict, colleague Tosheka Robinson authored the chapter on dialogue and provided a review of intergroup dialogue programs at campuses across the country. Citing foundational scholars on dialogue, Robinson explained that dialogue facilitates deep and powerful learning: In dialogue, “there are only people who are attempting together, to learn more than they know” (Freire, 1970/2005, p. 90). Different from discussion, dialogue goes beyond the surface of issues. It “is an open-ended process that allows all participants to gain new or deeper ways of thinking, to build relationships with others, and to work effectively on collaborative projects” (Ratnesh et al., 2007, p. 37). (Robinson, 2009, p. 90) TABLE 5.1

Dialogue Versus Debate Dialogue

Debate

Assuming many people have pieces of the answer and that only together can they craft a solution

Assuming there is one right answer and that you have it

Collaborative: Participants work together toward common understanding

Combative: Participants attempt to prove the other side wrong

About learning

About winning

Listening to understand and find meaning

Listening to find flaws and make counterarguments

Revealing assumptions for reevaluation

Defending assumptions as truth

Reexamining all positions

Critiquing the other side’s position

Admitting that others’ thinking can improve one’s own

Defending one’s own views against those of others

Searching for strengths and value in others’ positions

Searching for flaws and weaknesses in others’ positions

Discovering new opinions, not seeking closure

Seeking a conclusion or vote that ratifies your position

Note. Adapted from Yankelovich (1999, pp. 39–40).

reviving dialogue  

131

When Robinson wrote about dialogue in 2009, the dialogue pathway on the spectrum model approach to campus conflict was considered rudimentary. The pathway provided visual affirmation for the basic idea that educators should step back and encourage students to engage conflict on their own whenever possible and that doing so would facilitate learning and personal growth. Today, it is necessary to recognize that dialogue is both a pathway and pillar of the spectrum model because it is so fundamental to constructive engagement and learning across all processes and it is a resolution process in and of itself. The promise that students come to the physical or virtual campus equipped with the knowledge of, if not experience in, civil and productive discourse could never be presumed. Encouraging students to independently and directly engage in conversations with one another to gain understanding and build community is core to our work as educators. Naming dialogue as one of many pathways on a continuum continues to be an important message to students. Just as (and perhaps more) important in the current global context of communities, with leaders and nations shifting toward increased isolationism and tribalism, we must be explicit in naming dialogue as a pillar for each of the individual pathways identified on the spectrum model. Dialogue is a necessary pillar because students must have the capacity to listen and work together toward common understanding to effectively navigate and learn from any of the pathways on the spectrum model, including a mediation, healing circle, adjudicatory process, or any other conflict resolution mechanism available. A failure to effectively teach students the skills required for engaging in openended conversations to find meaning and collaborate compromises meaningful educational conflict management on campus. This is particularly true as discourse in the United States and globally around politically charged social issues and shared existential and economic threats continue to be amplified and escalated by the media in ways that encourage division over unity, debate over dialogue, and fighting over civility. Learning how to manage the impulse to attack, particularly from the distance of a computer screen, is a click away for nearly all students entering college today. Learning how to engage in constructive face-to-face and online problem-solving is another skill altogether.

A Polarization Problem The national landscape and culture around dialogue has shifted, and this shift in orientation is revealed in incoming students. Students arriving on campus in 2016 were identified as the most polarized class ever (Cooperative Institutional Research Program, 2016). A study completed in 2017 provided context for this trend, revealing a remarkable increase in political polarization

132 pathways within the spectrum model    and a notable decline in the civility and complexity of political discussions in America between January 2007 and May 2017 (Nithyanand et al. 2017). A 2017 nationwide survey reported a “civility deficit” reaching a record high in 2016, with three-quarters of Americans reporting incivility to be at crisis levels (Weber Shandwick, 2017). Conversations have shifted away from being tools for building connection and instead are becoming weapons for condemnation. We are experiencing a decline in community and understanding, which has been compounded by the onset of a global health and economic crisis. The contextual factors of social media, a shift in parenting styles, and highly charged national incidents linked to social identity and revealed disparities are creating a perfect storm that is contributing to a downward spiral in dialogue as rendered in Figure 5.1. Between 2015 and 2017, campuses experienced significant protest at the University of Missouri and Yale University, and disruption turned to violence at Middlebury College; University of California, Berkeley; and University of Virginia in 2017 (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018). These trends continue to build, and protesters concerned with issues as diverse as racism across the Figure 5.1.  Dialogue’s downward spiral.

PARENTING STYLES

SOCIAL MEDIA

HIGH PROFILE VIOLENCE

INTENSIF IED CAMPUS CONFLIC

T

reviving dialogue  

133

institution to ending campus sexual assault and whether institutions ethically invest resources are further fueled by allied social media resources meant to inform, support, and grow activism. The rise of social media as both an organizing tool and at times a vehicle for incendiary misinformation undergirds the polarizing protest culture on many campuses. Indeed, the role of social media in increased political protest cannot be ignored. Obviously, political protest itself is far from new, but the fact that it is possible to access real‐time accounts of protest behavior documented and archived through microblogging (e.g., Twitter) and social media (e.g., Facebook) websites is a novel phenomenon. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a protest that does not have its own distinctive hashtag on Twitter. (Jost et al., 2018, p. 86)

While social networking offers this ability to connect activists, it also fuels discord. In a 2014 study (Duggan, 2014), the Pew Research Center found that 73% of social networking users witnessed harassment and 40% experienced it personally. As many as 60% of users reported witnessing ­name-calling. Almost all (92%) of those surveyed agreed that social networking allows others to be more aggressive than they would be in face-to-face interactions. A 2018 study at Stanford University examined the impact of the so-called social media echo chamber on political perspectives. Researchers found that politically charged issues sort social media users into just two categories: liberal and conservative. Moreover, the views gaining traction online tend to be less moderate and fall along party lines (Mosley, 2018). This threatens meaningful engagement across difference on campus and demonstrates the risk that most opinions are shaped by social media echo chambers rather through thoughtful independent consideration. As Stanford political science professor and Hoover Institution fellow Morris Fiorina noted, “No one has figured out yet how to use social media to bring a civil, more nuanced dialogue that truly represents who we are as Americans” (Mosley, 2018). These trends in online practices combined with the increased push toward virtual distancing as a pandemic response are teaching students how to divide rather than dialogue. Observers are also attributing the downward spiral in dialogue and the rise in disruptive and destructive campus conflict to changes in parenting styles. Some are noticing that students arriving on campus in recent years represent the most supervised generation ever, and this generation more than any other has been deprived of the learning and resilience typically developed through unsupervised play, interaction, and developmental experiences with conflict in childhood and early adolescence:

134   

pathways within the spectrum model

Free play helps children develop the skills of cooperation and dispute resolution that are closely related to the “art of association” upon which democracies depend. When citizens are not skilled in this art, they are less able to work out the ordinary conflict of daily life. They will more frequently call for authorities to apply coercive force to their opponents. (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018, p. 194)

Another explanation for the increased disruption and breakdown in dialogue on campus in recent years is student activism as a response to visible and disturbing targeting of marginalized social identities. Reports of hate crimes have been on the rise with a 17% increase in 2018. Controversial incidents of violence and oppression receiving national coverage in recent years include the following: 2012: Killing of Trayvon Martin 2013: George Zimmerman acquitted of the murder of Trayvon Martin 2014: Police killing of Michael Brown and Eric Garner 2015: Dylann Roof massacres nine Black worshipers in Charleston, South Carolina; police killing of Walter Scott 2016: Omar Mateen kills 49 in attack on gay nightclub; police killing of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile; North Carolina requires transgender people to use bathrooms corresponding to sex on their birth certificate 2017: U.S. government attempts to enact “Muslim bans” on immigration and a ban on transgender people in military service; NeoNazi kills Heather Heyer in Charlottesville march; #MeToo exposes epidemic of sexual harassment and sexual assault culture (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018) 2018: Shooter kills 11 people in a Pittsburgh synagogue 2019: Shooter targeting Latinx victims kills 22 people in El Paso 2020: Police killing of George Floyd Is the breakdown in productive community discourse on campus and across higher education attributable to cultural shifts in civility, increased use of social media, changes in parenting styles, or a response to increased oppression? It is likely a combination of all these factors and more, including a heightened sense of our own mortality in an uncertain world. Regardless, we know college campuses have a polarization problem that reflects the world around them, compounded by a deficit in dialogue skills. Without the ability to engage dialogue effectively, learning is impossible and attempts at conflict management futile. Campuses must account

reviving dialogue  

135

for the current context and embrace cultural changes by investing in preparing incoming students for productive conversations and reevaluating spaces, structures, and policies that inhibit independent engagement across difference.

Campuses That Model Democracy Structured learning (inclusive of K–12, trade schools, and college learning venues) is key to restoring dialogue as democracy’s cornerstone (National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement, 2012). Speaking to higher education leaders, Eboo Patel, founder of the Interfaith Youth Core, asserted that “a huge part of what colleges do is model diverse democracy” (Blumenstyk, 2019). We know engaging in casual/informal (respectful), provocative conversations across different worldviews facilitates growth and learning and improves climate (Rockenbach et al., 2018). So, how do we prepare students for dialogue and create the conditions that encourage productive engagement and difficult discourse? We propose a three-pronged solution to the dialogue deficit that focuses on students, spaces, and structures.

Developing Students Skilled in Dialogue To restore dialogue, campus communities must name improvement of individual capacity for discourse across difference as a strategic imperative for cocurricular educational programming, particularly for first-year students. Climate surveys on campus indicate that many incoming students come from homogenous communities and find college to be their first real encounter with truly diverse worldviews (University of Michigan, 2016). Finding ways to instill the confidence, curiosity, and cultural humility necessary for productive and independent engagement across difference requires intentional program development. Intercultural learning programs are gaining popularity in campus efforts as a vehicle to inspire awareness and skill-building to improve dialogue across difference. Programs focused on “ignition moments” in individual students early in their arrival to campus pave the way for increased interest in and engagement with subsequent cocurricular experiences and offerings that improve cross-cultural conversations throughout and beyond a college career (R. Harper & N. Hanke, personal communication, May 25, 2017). An ignition moment is a moment of dissonance or disequilibrium around culture and worldview that results in awareness and curiosity and a thirst to understand in a new way what we thought we already knew. Providing these moments for all students through individualized, private, non-shaming,

136 pathways within the spectrum model    reflection experiences that provide a combination of qualified challenge and appropriate and informed support sets the stage for a positive orientation around understanding and appreciating cultural differences. Programming devoted to investing in individualized intercultural competence reflection and coaching experiences for students that precedes or parallels provocative or controversial group engagement around diverse worldviews improves the likelihood of productive dialogue rather than polarizing debate. These tools should be presented as relevant and necessary for all students (regardless of their social identities and past experiences with diversity, equity, and inclusion) as every student has learning to do around understanding and appreciating difference. This approach shifts the focus (and finger pointing) away from others and provides an empowering moment to invest in self and promote positive change. Using a personal intercultural inventory or assessment approach with students that is followed by an individualized and/or small group coaching session provides robust and meaningful learning. Two examples of this approach include the Intercultural Development Inventory and the intercultural conflict style inventory. These tools are discussed more in chapter 14. A related resource is basic conflict coaching for students. As discussed in chapter 6, conflict coaching is a one-on-one consultation process with a trained coach designed to assess and develop an individual’s communication skills and conflict management strategies. Following and in parallel to offering individual capacity-building tools, students should be offered opportunities for practicing their skills in supportive and intentional experiences. A list of dialogue support resources for developing programming in this area is provided in Figure 5.2.

Creating Spaces for Encouraging Dialogue Across Difference When students are equipped with basic personal awareness and are provided access to and encouraged to enter environments that structurally determine spontaneous constructive engagement across difference, powerful paradigmshifting learning moments occur. Spaces of focus for campuses interested in improved informal student dialogue (independent of third-party facilitation or authority intervention) include multicultural centers, residence halls, dining venues, and online learning communities. As our culture continuously evolves, so do the missions of campus multicultural centers. The history of multicultural centers began with a priority focus on creating necessary space for students with a narrative counter to campuses’ dominant culture to find affirming community and

reviving dialogue  

137

Figure 5.2.  Dialogue programming resources.

Ask Big Questions (askbigquestions.org) Better Angels (better-angels.org) Center for Nonviolent Communication (cnvc.org) Center for Whole Communities (wholecommunities.org) Civil Conversations Project (onbeing.org) Essential Partners (whatisessential.org) Everyday Democracy (everyday-democracy.org) Heterodox Academy (heterodoxacademy.org) Hi From the Other Side (hifromtheotherside.com) I Am Your Protector (iamyourprotector.org) Interfaith Youth Core (ifyc.org) National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (ncdd.org) National Institute for Civil Discourse (nicd.arizona.edu) Resetting the Table (resettingthetable.org) Sisterhood of Salaam Shalom (sosspeace.org) Spaceship Media (spaceshipmedia.org) The Village Square (the.villagesquare.us)

Note. Adapted from Bornstein (2018).

critical support. Many campuses now see these buildings as both individual community support spaces and centers for intercultural engagement, managing a delicate but necessary balance between both parts of the mission. Relatedly, a recent innovation in campus centers is the Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation Center (TRHT) as another space for encouraging productive dialogue across difference (Association of American Colleges & Universities [AAC&U], 2020). Led by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and in partnership with the AAC&U, TRHT centers provide a community process to engage students in addressing inequities, relationship-building, and narrative changes around race.

138   

pathways within the spectrum model

The institutions selected to host TRHT Campus Centers include the following: Adelphi University (NY) Andrews University (MI) Austin Community College (TX) Big Sandy Community and Technical College (KY) Brown University (RI) Dominican University (IL) Duke University (NC) George Mason University (VA) Hamline University (MN) Marywood University (PA) Millsaps College (MS) Otterbein University (OH) Rutgers University—Newark (NJ) Southern Illinois University–Edwardsville (IL) Spelman College (GA) Stockton University (NJ) The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina (SC) University of Arkansas–Fayetteville (AR) University of California, Irvine (CA) University of Hawai’i at Ma¯noa (HI) University of Maryland Baltimore County (MD) The Charlotte Racial Justice Consortium (University of North Carolina Charlotte, Johnson C. Smith University, and Queens University of Charlotte) (NC) University of Puget Sound (WA) Another valuable location for encouraging dialogue across difference is in the residential living environment. These communal spaces have always provided opportunities for real conversations (and learning), even without purposeful programming and structures. Educators are recognizing the increased potential for residential communities as vehicles for healthy and positive crosscultural dialogue when they are intentional about (a) placing students in regular contact with others who are different, (b) designing channels for support and feedback, and (c) positioning a common goal for the community that requires collaboration across differences (Schreiner et al., 2012). Campuses are providing this through living-learning communities with themes and/or links to academic programs and/or service-learning experiences. In these environments,

reviving dialogue  

139

students grow and engage as a result of close links with faculty, staff, students, and community members. Innovative living, learning, and theme communities include those organized around academic interests or majors, arts/creativity, spirituality, health/nutrition, and substance-free housing. Another valuable space for encouraging positive engagement across difference on campus remains the dining hall. This is often the one place where all members from all parts of the campus community congregate at some point in their busy schedules. The table at which students “break bread” together is also the place where paradigms shift and friends are made. Developing a new friendship with an individual who possesses a different worldview in the first year of college continues to be the most powerful vehicle for promoting pluralism and appreciation for diversity (Rockenbach et al., 2018). Campuses doing more to build community and make dining spaces more inclusive focus on innovative approaches like hosting special events, theme nights, and festivals. These campuses also provide dining menus that signal a commitment to intercultural competence by offering global cuisine and options for those committed to a vegetarian, kosher, or halal diet. Creating centers, living environments, and dining halls, including those social spaces moved online, provide structure and programming that encourage engagement, build community, and facilitate spontaneous dialogue across difference. When these spaces model expectations of inclusion and appreciation for diversity it sets the stage for discourse on interesting and diverse topics.

Rethinking Structures to Foster Dialogue Encouraging students with growing intercultural competence and confidence to engage across difference will inevitably result in increased conflict. The structures we have in place in anticipation and response to this conflict can either prevent or promote future healthy engagement in difficult discourse. All institutional structures, including facilities, systems, and policies, should be evaluated to consider how they may unintentionally inhibit, discourage, or facilitate constructive dialogue across difference. In 2017, the Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE) issued a report critiquing campus bias response protocols. Evaluating colleges across the country, FIRE considered whether these campuses were engaging in practices that may be violating free speech rights. Of concern were protocols that appeared to bring together campus administrators to respond on behalf of offended students when conflicts revolved around allegations of bias but did not include conduct considered to be a violation of student misconduct policies. In the years that followed, campuses began to reflect on bias response

140 pathways within the spectrum model    protocols and issue campus statements to affirm free speech and a commitment to creating an inclusive campus environment for diverse worldviews. For example, Colgate University embraced the ideals of free speech and inclusion as complementary to (and not in competition with) one another and affirmed “the rights of all community members to voice their views, even if unpopular, while helping them to likewise cultivate the habits of mind and skills necessary to respond effectively to views that they may find wrong or offensive” (Flaherty, 2018, para. 9). Colgate further encouraged all community members to maintain a “culture and community that will inspire its members to pursue knowledge with rigor and curiosity, speak and listen with care, and work so that even the quietest or most underrepresented voices among us are heard” (para. 10). Identifying and clarifying a campus’s commitment to free speech and inclusion is complex and necessary work. Similarly, continued reflection on response protocols for campus climate-related conflict and concerns are critical, not only for alignment with legal and ethical considerations but also to deliver on the academic mission to promote (not prevent) dialogue across difference. A campus policy that places administrators in the driver seat (as opposed to the affected and involved students) to address climate-related conflicts deprives students of personal power and learning. The spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) offers the ideal structure for campuses struggling to address climate-related conflicts in a way that values the interests, needs, and rights of all students. By providing a centralized intake for all types of conflict and offering multiple studentdriven alternative dispute resolution (ADR) non-disciplinary pathways, institutions can empower students through the spectrum model approach to resolve their conflicts in ways that best meet their needs. For example, an offended student alleging bias may engage a conflict coaching pathway offered out of the Ombuds Office to be provided with information, resources, and support from a trained staff member. This coach can assist the student in identifying their own needs and goals and explore options for how to move forward— instead of jumping out in front of the student and advancing a cause on their behalf and in a way that may chill the free speech rights of another student. In such a scenario, the offended student may (or may not) decide to engage the other party in a difficult but productive dialogue (without third-party or authority involvement), resulting in learning for both parties and long-term strategies for difficult conversations across difference (a valuable skill for a lifetime). Another structural consideration for encouraging dialogue across difference is organization recruitment policies for new students. As discussed, to promote real opportunities for engagement across difference, campuses can create living, learning, and theme communities for new students paired

reviving dialogue  

141

with positive community-building experiences like service-learning projects. By timing student organization recruitment practices to precede these valuable learning experiences, the institution limits many students of opportunities as they unknowingly and prematurely opt in to communities that lack the rich diversity offered by the larger campus. With a bit of intentionality around timing, campuses can offer students a chance to have meaningful discourse across diverse communities and then enter student organizations with increased intercultural competence and dialogue capacity. Finally, our own organizational structures must be assessed to consider whether they model partnership and collaboration across difference, especially if we expect students to engage with others sharing different perspectives. When administrative and academic units model polarization, students quickly absorb the cultural values of competition over creative collaboration. This tills the soil for a win/lose competitive debate framework as opposed to a win/win dialogue mind-set. For a campus committed to a positive and productive dialogue culture, every program a campus offers and every initiative introduced should model collaborative and creative partnership. Likewise, the institution’s organization charts, budgets, and personnel decisions should reinforce a message of collaboration over competition. This collaborative approach will be all the more important in the new landscape of increased complexity and decreased resources resulting from a pandemic.

Conclusion Developing in future graduates the capacity to engage in dialogue is not just a useful pathway for dispute resolution or a critical pillar of a successful campus conflict education model, it is an essential cornerstone for tomorrow’s democracy. Investing in preparing students for healthy discourse and intentionally providing the space and structures to promote and practice engagement in dialogue across difference are fundamental investments that serve the core mission of higher education. Institutions with strategic priorities, resource plans, and organizational structures that recognize the need to revive dialogue as the heart of the academy will produce tomorrow’s leaders and provide necessary cultural changes that will shift the civility trajectory and benefit future generations.

Summary Campuses are experiencing increased polarization and disruption and students are arriving on campus with decreased conflict management capacity

142 pathways within the spectrum model    and an inability to effectively engage in productive dialogue. The ability to engage in dialogue is foundational to learning and a healthy campus climate and is a cornerstone of democracy. Dialogue is also a pillar and a pathway of the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) approach to campus conflict management. This chapter defines dialogue and provides several strategies for promoting dialogue and improving engagement across difference.

Questions for Reflection and Dialogue 1. In what ways is dialogue foundational to learning and education? 2. What are popular culture and leaders (local, national, and international) teaching students about conflict and dialogue? 3. What messages do current and incoming students receive from higher education institutions about dialogue and conflict across difference? 4. What are some specific strategies for promoting dialogue and improving engagement across difference on campus and online platforms?

References Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U). (2020). Truth, racial healing & transformation campus centers (TRHT). https://www.aacu.org/trhtcampus-centers Blumenstyk, G. (2019, January 29). 5 takeaways from 24 hours at a major teaching conference. Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/5Takeaways-From-24-Hours-at/245564 Bornstein, D. (2018). Recovering the (lost) art of civility. New York Times. https:// www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/opinion/recovering-the-lost-art-of-civility.html Cooperative Institutional Research Program. (2016). The American freshman: National norms fall 2016. https://www.heri.ucla.edu/monographs/The AmericanFreshman2016.pdf Dewey, J. (1916/2004). Democracy and education. Dover. Duggan, M. (2014, October 22). Online harassment. Pew Research Center. https:// www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/ Flaherty, C. (2018, October 5). Rigorous inquiry and respectful debate: Colgate offers up its own statement on campus speech, arguing that it’s not just what you say, it’s how you say it. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/10/05/ colgate-offers-statement-campus-speech-arguing-its-not-just-what-you-say-itshow-you Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. (2017). Bias response team report. https://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ 01012623/2017-brt-report-corrected.pdf

reviving dialogue  

143

Freire, P. (1970/2005) Pedagogy of the oppressed (revised ed.) (M. Berman Ramos, Trans.) Continuum. Jost, J., Barberá, P., Bonneau, R., Langer, M., Metzger, M., Nagler, J., Sterling, J., & Tucker, J. A. (2018). How social media facilitates political protest: Information, motivation, and social networks. Political Psychology, 39(S1), 85–118. Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2018). The coddling of the American mind: How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure. Penguin. Mosley, T. (2018, November 5). How social media echo chambers drown out the voices in the middle. KQED. https://www.kqed.org/news/11703717/how-social-mediaecho-chambers-drown-out-the-voices-in-the-middle National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement. (2012). A ­crucible moment: College learning and democracy’s future. Association of American Colleges & Universities. Nithyanand, R., Schaffner, B., & Gill, P. (2017, November 14). Online discourse in the Trump era. Cornell University. https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.0530 Ratnesh, B., Nagda, A. & Gurin, P. (2007). Intergroup dialogue: A critical-dialogic approach to learning about differences, inequality, and social justice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2007(111), 35–45. Robinson, T. (2009) Moving toward a healthier climate for conflict resolution through dialogue. In J. M. Schrage & N. G. Giacomini (Eds.), Reframing campus conflict: Student conduct through a social justice lens (pp. 87–99). Stylus. Rockenbach, A. N., Mayhew, M. J., Correia-Harker, B. P., Morin, S., Dahl, L., & Associates (2018). Best practices for interfaith learning and development in the first year of college. Interfaith Youth Core. Schrage, J. M., & Thompson, M.C. (2008, June). Using a social justice model for conflict resolution to ensure access for all students. Paper presented at Donald D. Gehring Academy for Student Conduct Administration, Salt Lake City, UT. Schreiner, L. A., Louis, M. C., & Nelson, D. D. (Eds.). (2012). Thriving in transitions: A research-based approach to college student success. Stylus. University of Michigan. (2016). Student campus climate survey on diversity, equity and inclusion. https://diversity.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/DEISTUDENT-REPORT-FINAL.pdf Weber Shandwick. (2017, June 13). Civility in America VII: The state of civility. https://www.webershandwick.com/news/civility-in-america-vii-the-state-ofcivility/ Yankelovich, D. (1999). The magic of dialogue: Transforming conflict into cooperation. Simon & Schuster.

6 T H E A RT O F C OAC H I N G Transferring Interpersonal and Group Conflict Resolution Skills to a One-on-One Setting Nancy Geist Giacomini and Patricia M. Porter Prepare the individual for the path, not the path for the individual. —Author unknown

Introduction The idea expressed as “prepare the individual for the path, not the path for the individual” has shown up in diverse publications from The Coddling of the American Mind (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018) to an online piece about snowplow parenting in the wake of the largest known U.S. college admissions scandal (Miller & Bromwich, 2019). Greg Lukianoff, coauthor of the book, is also president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). The core message in Coddling, as aligned with FIRE’s one-dimensional approach to protecting campus free speech, oversimplifies the complexity of advancing institutional missions of diversity and inclusion together with creating and sustaining a nondiscriminatory educational environment that invites all members of the community to be heard and valued across identities. Still, we have learned a little something about the consequences of silos and group think, seeming good intentions and potentially bad guidance, as a changing U.S. political climate pitches us between ideological, policy, and leadership extremes. Among the lessons learned in a climate that fosters divisiveness is the importance of making constructive shared meaning across opposing views as we weigh the intent and impact (goals and outcomes) of change. Here, when we weigh priorities of building inclusive and engaged 144

the art of coaching  

145

communities and individual freedoms in a chapter on building conflict capacity, we pause to consider whether we as educators have perpetuated a hypervigilant approach to student development and learning on campus akin to the degrees of snowplow parenting we find in many family units of this new generation of learners (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018; Miller & Bromwich, 2019). It will remain fascinating to watch how the abrupt interruption of school as we knew it and the acceleration of home-based, local, and online learning impacts familial and educational relationships in the wake of a 2020 global health scare and pandemic response. Here we ask ourselves, have we/are we unintentionally raising a generation of “coddled” minds walking about as students without the requisite grit, fortitude, and resilience needed to navigate their journey into adulthood? Is this the cost of good-faith efforts to not only level playing fields and take down barriers to play but also clear the landscape of all manner of tripping hazards, bruised egos, and unsportsmanlike conduct? If so, it stands to reason that students are more in need of a remedial conflict coach than ever before as they work to reclaim the innate but underdeveloped ability to simply get along with one another and constructively self-advocate when faced with conflict in person and online. This chapter provides a brief history of coaching, specifically conflict coaching on college and university campuses, while introducing the appeal of this process as part of an effective and efficient integrated conflict management approach. We review essential coaching principles and highlight resources as well as leading models used by campus conflict resolution practitioners while examining how authentic applications have evolved to support individuals as they build more constructive ways of understanding, engaging, and de-escalating conflict. Conflict coaching (also known as conflict management coaching) promotes the integration of an accessible, oneon-one process as part of an institutionalized plan to support individuals as they navigate their own conflicts more constructively across situations, and often without the need for additional third-party, or policy prescribed interventions. In other words, conflict coaching as a process option along the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) helps prepare the individual student for a bumpy and uncharted journey, rather than bulldoze a smooth path for the student.

A Brief History of Conflict Coaching on Campus The origins of coaching as an organizational tool can be traced to the latter half of the 20th century, and today the practice is widely used across the

146 pathways within the spectrum model    globe. According to Vikki Brock (2009) in “Professional Challenges Facing the Coaching Field From an Historical Perspective,” “The real birth of executive and business coaching emerged from leadership and supervisory development, sports coaching and personal development training from the 1980s” (p. 5). Coaching theories and models of practice developed from various ­disciplines including adult learning theory, human resource development, psychology, organizational development, and leadership theories. The International Coach Federation (ICF), a global organization dedicated to advancing the field of professional coaching, became a leading source of evidence-based research and training credentials beginning in 1995 and established the standards of practice and ethical conduct for professional coaches. Since the 2000s, coaching has evolved in a range of contexts. For instance, in organizations, it is commonly used as a leadership tool and referred to as leadership and executive coaching. Business coaching aims to help people develop and manage their businesses, and life coaching is the term of choice for personal development. Specialized coaching has also emerged in response to market needs such as parent and divorce coaching, admissions coaching, career transitioning, financial coaching, and so on. Conflict coaching is one such specialty, and it has grown exponentially since the early 2000s in higher education and other contexts as well. Two well-known conflict coaching definitions stem from the work of leading pioneers in the dispute resolution field. In their book, Conflict Coaching: Conflict Management Strategies and Skills for the Individual, Tricia Jones and Ross Brinkert (2008) define conflict coaching as “a process in which a coach and client communicate one-on-one for the purpose of developing the client’s conflict-related understanding, interaction strategies, and interaction skills” (pp. 4–5). Another trailblazer in conflict management coaching is Cinnie Noble (2011), author of Conflict Management Coaching: The CINERGY® Model. Noble (2011) defines conflict management coaching as “a structured process in which a trained coach helps people gain increased competence and confidence to manage and engage in interpersonal conflicts and disputes” (p. 3). Essentially, conflict coaching “offers a short-term, future-focused and defined goal-oriented process that helps people improve the way they engage in conflict” (Noble, 2011, p. 7). This chapter’s contributors were introduced to conflict coaching in higher education as University of Delaware colleagues during the First National Conference on Transformative Mediation in 2004 at Temple University. Giacomini was responsible for student conduct administration and was a new mediator eager to expand process options while supporting a student government–driven mediation initiative. Porter, a conflict resolution specialist, worked at the Conflict Resolution Program housed on campus

the art of coaching  

147

in the Institute for Public Administration (now part of the Biden School of Public Policy & Administration) supporting conflict resolution training and mediation efforts both on campus and as a mediator for special education disputes with the Delaware Department of Education. This conference introduced the need for one-on-one problem-solving in lieu of mediation and named Macquarie University in Australia as the first institution to formally offer one-on-one conflict support in 1993. Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was the first North American institution to coin the term conflict coaching and offer it as a process option for helping individuals build conflict capacity one on one (Jones & Brinkert, 2008). Not unlike other institutions, the campus conflict resolution program at Temple was faced with a low demand for mediation, and consequently, conflict coaching developed under the coleadership of professors Joseph P. Folger and Tricia S. Jones to become a central conflict resolution service offered on campus. Temple continues to be a leading resource for campus conflict management applications today, including free peer coaching, presentations, and mediation offered by the Conflict Education Resource Team (CERT) and a 12-credit Conflict Process Graduate certificate offered by the College of Education. A simple internet search yields dozens of additional schools with visibly named conflict coaching in addition to student success coaching initiatives accessible to students, staff, and/or faculty. These offerings are often an extension of existing mediation services on campus and may be offered as standalone programs, in tandem to student conduct units, and/or under an ombudsperson role. We share examples of several programs in addition to Temple University at the close of this chapter. As student affairs programs have expanded conflict and conduct management services into mediation and conflict coaching process options, colleges and universities have also introduced organizational ombudsperson programs for faculty, students, and/or staff. An organizational ombudsperson (the often used term ombudsman and root ombuds are also used and considered to be gender neutral) takes its name from the Swedish word for represent, meaning that the role represents ideals of fairness and ethics. The International Ombudsman Association (IOA) was founded in 2005 as a merger between the Ombudsman Association and the University and College Ombuds Association and offers both a resource and a snapshot of the ombudsperson field today. Many institutions and organizations across fields draw from the standards of practice and code of ethics to shape, evaluate, and sustain a principled approach to managing conflict and building individual and organizational conflict capacity by establishing an ombuds­ person office on pillars of independence, neutrality and impartiality, con­ fidentiality, and informality. As represented in Figure 6.1, the IOA depicts

148 pathways within the spectrum model    the ombudsperson’s role as a process option much like those found along the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008), where seeking the support of an ombudsperson lies along a continuum between informal, cooperative pathways to the most formal processes found in litigation. The spectrum model conceptualizes the role of an ombudsperson not as a unique pathway but as a confidential and universal resource across resolution options. We incorporate the position of ombudspersons in this chapter, together with some unique applications of conflict coaching, to highlight the heavy reliance on coaching skills and practices within this role while introducing an additional way to incorporate one-on-one support in an integrated conflict management system.   Institutions offer opportunities for students to learn about and address conflict more constructively across health and counseling services, diversity offices, and academic advisement programs and through student group organization advisers. Conflict support is also available on campuses that offer residential living. Here, undergraduate student and professional staff are typically trained and readily available to offer frontline, lower-level conflict support to students experiencing everything from roommate conflicts and academic concerns to personal and community issues of substance abuse, difficult discourse across difference, and sexual misconduct. Mauriello and Pierson (2018) provide an overview of the many ways conflict coaching skills and online assessment tools can be used in residence to help students become more self-aware while building their conflict capacity to better facilitate and manage their own everyday interpersonal and inter- and intragroup disputes without the need for formal interventions and escalated process options including adjudication. In their individual practices at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and Washington University in St. Louis, both the Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Inventory (TKI) (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974) and the Intercultural Dialogue Inventory presented in Chapter 14 prove useful as the basis for conflict coaching style support and intervention Figure 6.1.  Ombuds resolution process continuum. Cooperative/Informal/Interest Based

Inaction Self-help

Negotiation

Competitive/Formal/Rights Based

Facilitation Mediation Ombudsperson

Grievance Arbitration

Litigation

Note. Adapted from an unpublished training document produced for International Ombudsman Association Foundation Training, spring 2019.

the art of coaching  

149

at informal levels. In fact, conflict coaching seems more in the wheelhouse of residence life staff than the formal mediation practices that gained in popularity over the past decade. Providing mediation, however, is often compromised by inadequate time, training, and the perceived lack of multipartiality of staff living among those in conflict. The reality that often one, but not all parties, is available and invested in working toward a constructive outcome with support from a third party is another consideration.  

The Appeal of Conflict Coaching on Campus Campus conflict coaching along a continuum of conflict and conduct management options has been successfully introduced in cases of roommate misunderstandings; relationship conflicts; failed communication with family, professors, and administrators; compromised anger management; and personal goal setting (Hosea, 2008; Jones & Brinkert, 2008; Katz & Kovack, 2016). Coaching is not counseling, nor does it replace related guidance available from campus allies, including academic and group advisers, residence life staff, and spiritual leaders. Instead, coaching offers a unique skill set that trained practitioners, including student peers, can effectively incorporate into existing practices. Adding a conflict coaching option to existing campus supports is appealing for many reasons. It is comparatively efficient to administer. Unlike scheduling multiple parties to participate in a facilitated session, restorative justice circle, mediation, or a formal adjudication process, coaching typically requires just two people: the trained practitioner as coach and the person in conflict. Further, depending on an individual’s goals and needs and the model used, often no more than a relatively short engagement across a couple of hours in one or more sessions is required. Coaching is also appealing over (or in addition to) other spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) pathways, including mediation and adjudication, because it is often difficult to get all stakeholders in a conflict voluntarily to the table. Sometimes students will individually schedule a conflict coaching session at the outset of a conflict. In other instances, it can be a successful backup plan when a mediation or other facilitated, voluntary dialogue is scheduled and one party is a no show. Conflict coaching also offers practitioners a chance to flex skill sets acquired in mediation training. One of the biggest complaints and systemic challenges for freshly trained mediators is the lack of opportunity to apply and practice new skills while formal programs are developed, institutionalized, and widely used.

150   

pathways within the spectrum model

Conflict Coaching Models: Principles, Coachability, Approaches, and Transferable Skills Two primary conflict coaching models emerged in the early 2000s that guide many of today’s campus practices. They include the comprehensive conflict coaching model (CCCM) by Jones and Brinkert (2008) and the CINERGY® conflict management coaching model by Noble (2011). Practitioners ­often complete one of these two foundational coaching courses and later adapt hybrid approaches to fit the specific needs of a campus community. To some extent, mediation training also offers transferable knowledge and skills that often inform applications of conflict coaching. Jones and Brinkert (2008) support a conflict coaching model based in narrative, appreciative, and communication theories while Noble’s conflict management coaching model leans on cognitive-behavioral, neuroscience, and dispute resolution theories. Both models assist a person in conflict as they unpack, discover, and interpret their conflict stories from different perspectives and are in keeping with student development and identity-based theoretical approaches advanced in this book. Moreover, both models allow for conflictspecific dialogue to unfold in ways that meet educational and transformative conflict goals without an untenable investment of time. Finally, coaching brings a process formerly used to better the skills of people in high-level career positions to campus. In so doing, coaching places accessible skills and inclusive new opportunities for self-insight into the hands of students and others experiencing conflict, regardless of their aspirations, backgrounds, or career choices. Conflict coaching practices are guided by operating principles from both the professional coaching and dispute resolution fields. A fundamental principle across fields is that of self-determination, which is the individual’s right and ability to make their own choices and to make informed and uncoerced decisions about how they will manage their conflicts. Additional guidance provided in Noble’s (2000/2020) training manual includes the following: Conflict presents opportunities for people to strengthen their relationships with themselves and others. Transformation in behavior is achieved, in part, by increased selfawareness and insight. Insights regarding conflicts are more likely to occur when people understand the concept of mutuality. This involves considering various elements of the conflict from both (all) sides. Clients’ goals and intentions are the focal points of the conflict management coaching conversation.

the art of coaching  

151

It is necessary to coach the clients within the culture, context, and environment in which they operate and live. (p. 18) Jones and Brinkert (2008) provide additional principles to help inform conflict coaching tailored for colleges and universities. Conflict coaches should be knowledgeable about conflict theory and research as well as competent in conflict analysis: Coaching aims to foster client empowerment with the coach combining expert and facilitative approaches. Conflict coaching should follow a high ethical standard. Conflict coaching should be seen as part of a larger system of conflict management. Conflict coaching must be sensitive to various cultural contexts. (pp. 12–17) Conflict coaching invites individuals to consider their personal repertoire of conflict management attitudes, skills, and resolution responses when faced with conflict in their academic, professional, and personal lives. For many, simply working with an experienced coach to review and consider the nature of a situational conflict, conflict in general, and response modes available to deal effectively with conflict provides added tools and the confidence to deal directly with an issue. Coaching allows individuals to see, sometimes for the first time, that they can de-escalate and manage conflict effectively in their own lives. In getting to such outcomes, the intake process is a critical first step before coaching begins in order to assess a coaching client’s “coachability” and to educate and prepare them for the coaching process. To be coached, an individual must be (a) accountable and take ownership of decisions and actions, (b) reflective and emotionally resilient in ways that allow them to be reflective about their contributions to the conflict, (c) willing to change thinking and behaviors in order to move forward constructively, (d) open to receiving input from the coach, and (e) willing to take risks. The intake process allows the coach and client to build rapport as clients ask questions and share concerns. Coaches explain the parameters of confidentiality, the voluntary nature of the process, what constitutes conflicts of interest, and their respective roles and responsibilities. They also typically outline what coaching is and what it is not, including the distinction that coaching is not counseling. At this introductory step, the coach begins to focus clients on what they hope to achieve by asking them to consider what their goals are and how they will measure success. A worthy intake process allows the client

152 pathways within the spectrum model    and coach to make an informed decision about whether to proceed with next steps based on shared expectations (Jones & Brinkert, 2008; Noble, 2011).

Comparative Conflict Coaching Process Table 6.1 shows a side-by-side comparison of the rudimentary stages used in each of the two leading conflict coaching models presented in this chapter and draws from our personal experience. Giacomini holds basic and advanced training certification in CCCM (Jones & Brinkert, 2008). Porter is a certified CINERGY® conflict coach, senior trainer, and competency assessor. While the models share similarities, there are notable distinctions. CCCM emphasizes teaching students about conflict styles. It also provides a stepped, nonlinear model that is fluid and allows for tailoring to meet individual needs. The model further emphasizes the importance of assessing learning throughout the process so that the client can best identify “benchmarks of success to determine progress along the way” (Jones & Brinkert, 2008, p. 39). Temple University continues to work from this model, and it has served as a foundational prototype for both higher education and community dispute resolution programs championed by Tricia Jones. Noble’s model aligns with ICF coaching philosophy and core coaching competencies of beginning where the client is and assisting them to identify goals and what they wish to do differently and more effectively. Coaches use effective questioning, intentional listening, and direct communication to guide the client through a sequential process that builds insights as they move forward through the seven steps. Though the process allows for flexibility to revisit earlier stages, the individual incrementally gains momentum and the awareness and perspective needed to choose a way forward. This, in turn, allows the individual to envision ways of responding to and interacting with the conflict in ways that are aligned with their goals. From there, the client and coach explore how those choices might play out in real life, before committing to a plan of action. The CINERGY® model is used widely in the federal, public, and private sectors as part of dispute resolution programs for employees and leaders, peer coaching programs, and organizational development departments; as additional techniques for various professional coaches; and by conflict management practitioners such as mediators, dialogue facilitators, and collaborative family lawyers. The model is taught as a graduate-level program at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas, Texas, and is widely recognized and used in the United States, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and other parts of Europe.

the art of coaching  

153

TABLE 6.1

Comparison of Two Conflict Coaching Models Stage

CCCM

CINERGY®

Stage One

Discover the story Client presents an initial story of the conflict while exploring the story from the other person’s point of view.

Clarify the goal Goals are driven by the client and are action and future oriented.

Stage Two

Explore three perspectives (identity, emotion, and power) Coach supports client to analyze and identify and connect needs around identity, emotion, and power.

Inquire about the situation Client shares the conflict situation that brought them to coaching.

Stage Three

Craft the “best” story Takes the “best of the present” from the initial story and creates a vision moving forward. This best story guides what is needed for knowledge, skill, or attitude development.

Name the elements Client deconstructs their story from their perspective and considers the other person’s perspective too. Coach’s questions invite the client to consider their respective identities, values/beliefs, and needs that drive the situation.

Stage Four

Enact the best story Coach helps client to consider best approach for dealing with the conflict to ensure optimum outcome.

Explore choices/options Client brainstorms possible strategies and choices they wish to explore for moving forward.

Stage Five

Reconstruct the situation Client prepares, rehearses, or practices strategies with input from the coach

Stage Six

Ground the challenges Client identifies barriers that might get in the way of achieving their coaching goal.

Stage Seven

Yes, commit Client commits to doable and timely action steps to meet their coaching goals. The act of commitment and accountability strengthens their success.

Note. Client is used as a generic term for anyone seeking conflict coaching, including campus students, staff, and faculty.

154   

pathways within the spectrum model

Regardless of formal training or which model is used, conflict coaches must possess coaching skills such as those outlined by ICF (n.d.) core competencies, which include the ability to build rapport and trust; ask simple, intentional, and powerful questions to elicit new discoveries and insights; empathetically listen and connect to what the client is saying or not saying; provide direct and clear observations that address an individual’s blind spots so that they may choose to change or respond differently; and facilitate a client’s action steps for forward movement. Learning and practicing conflict coaching is a natural fit for educators, administrators, and students with foundations in inclusive student and identity development theories and trained in communication, multiculturalism, and conflict resolution skills. What makes a structured conflict coaching process unique is its specific agenda. Conflict coaching supports and empowers a student to explore the nature and modes of conflict, learn tools needed to help better manage everyday conflict, and improve the communication skills needed to resolve conflict more constructively. It is further unique in that it is designed as a relatively short-term process that values the unique skill sets, context, social identities, and developmental levels of an individual in their journey to understand and address conflict competently.

Organizations and Resources That Support and Inform Conflict Coaching Higher education has struggled to identify a single professional niche to support the unique nature of campus conflict resolution processes, including conflict coaching. Instead, supportive resources are found across leading student affairs organizations, including the Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA), ACPA—College Student Educators International, and NASPA–Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. Additional examples of diverse associations that serve conflict management practitioners across fields include the Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR), the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and IOA. Two international organizations of note that specifically support the advancement of conflict coaching are ICF and the International Association of Coaching (IAC). The ICF (n.d.) was established in 1995 and is branded as “the world’s largest organization of professionally trained coaches . . . committed to connecting member coaches with the tools and resources they need to succeed in their careers” (para. 2).

the art of coaching  

155

IAC was established in 2003 and boasts a membership of some 25,000 coaches worldwide. The association distinguishes itself from competitors by acknowledging coaching as “a transformative process for personal and professional awareness, growth, and the expansion of possibilities” (IAC, 2018, para. 2). Thomas Leonard, often credited as the founder of the modern coaching profession, developed the first international standards for coaching certification that have evolved into trademarked credential-bearing training. Conflict coaching options have come a long way since Robert Hosea (then PhD candidate at Nova Southeastern University, now civil ADR branch chief at Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division, Superior Court of the District of Columbia) introduced conflict coaching as a process option to campus conduct administrators at the 2008 Gehring Training Academy of the Association for Student Conduct Administration. Today, multiple models and associations have evolved across fields to further advance the practice of one-on-one coaching to build individual and systemic conflict capacity. Students, educators, and administrators seeking campus-relevant conflict coaching training and related resources are encouraged to explore diverse offerings across local, national, and international agencies and associations in order to best align their own campus cultures, needs, and program goals with available resources and training. Hosea’s doctoral program continues to advance coaching as an integrated process option with ongoing contributions in the field, including published comprehensive research on the implementation of the model across the United States (Katz & Kovack, 2016).

Conflict Coaching Applications on Campus Conflict coaching is growing as a training and certification interest in organizations and educational institutions. Porter noted this uptick as an adjunct faculty member teaching the CINERGY® model of conflict management coaching and invited former students to share conflict coaching applications on campuses across the country to round out the chapter. Colorado State University, Oberlin College, and The University of Texas at Austin offer transferable examples of how conflict coaching models are showing up in student affairs and human resource management practices today, including those facilitated by peers and ombudspersons for students, faculty, and staff. 

Colorado State University Colorado State University (CSU) in Fort Collins has offered campus restorative justice and mediation since 2002, with informal conflict coaching for students who prefer a one-on-one option. The original center

156 pathways within the spectrum model    functioned with one staff member until additional staff were added in 2014. All staff are trained in conflict coaching and conflict coaching is a sanction option. Conflict coaching as a sanction is a hybrid application. This and other non-sanction-related coaching sessions at CSU are focused on goals and skill building. Sometimes, staff will introduce Noble’s (2000/2020) (not-so) merry-go-round of conflict (NSMGR) construct (see Figure 6.2), when a student is stuck or lacks clarity in the specific elements of the dispute from both perspectives. This tool proves very helpful. Sometimes clarity is not the issue but an individual needs support preparing for a hard conversation. Staff can help with this as well as help identify what the student needs to do, who else is involved, the nature of conflict, responsibility, and needs of all participants. Box 6.1 offers a glimpse at one way to incorporate conflict

Figure 6.2.  The (not-so) merry-go-round of conflict. Precipitating interaction

Trigger point

(and the underlying value, need, and/or aspect of identity)

Consequences

External dispute

Internal conflict

External reaction

(internal reaction)

Assumptions

(re: motive/intent)

Boundary

Note. Noble (2000/2020, p. 25).

Impact

the art of coaching  

157

BOX 6.1.

Case in Point

Conflict Coaching and the Conflict Dynamics Profile as Educational Sanction Options Although most services are voluntary, CSU began offering one to four sessions of conflict coaching as an adjudicated sanction in 2016 for students found responsible for policy violations and in need of more constructive conflict management skills. One tool used in sanctioned conflict coaching is the Conflict Dynamics Profile (CDP), an online assessment that provides students with personal information about their constructive and destructive conflict behaviors and conflict triggers. Students process their results with a trained staff member to build conflict capacity. All staff are certified to administer the CDP assessment, offer input, and coach the student to identify and focus on one to two future conflict goals. The center offers CDP training and the assessment has become an integral part of the sanction conflict coaching process. Post-sanction surveys of those required to complete the sanction show 100% satisfaction with conflict coaching as a valuable resource for learning and applying more constructive conflict management skills. The CSU center receives frequent requests for campus outreach and education about common issues that arise in conflict and how to incorporate conflict coaching and the CDP to help build individual proactive conflict capacity. In one instance, an adviser encouraged their students to access the center and CDP to help prepare them for constructive conflict management on an upcoming international trip. coaching and related conflict capacity building instruments into existing student conduct sanctioning models. One reason for the longevity of the center and coordinated efforts by cross-functional campus partners is the support received from campus leadership and other offices. The center itself is funded by student fees. Integrated conflict management, like that provided by the center in coordination with student conduct, as well as an evolving ombudsperson role for faculty and staff, is also recognized as a key factor in successful student retention. Additional restorative justice and conflict resolution services help create a campus culture and climate that encourages students to remain enrolled while having an overall good college experience. Practices are aligned with IOA’s ethical principles and standards of practice that endorse independence, neutrality and impartiality, confidentiality, and informality while minding

158 pathways within the spectrum model    the challenges of mandatory reporting in instances of alleged sexual harassment and misconduct. In keeping with ombudsperson protocol, center staff advocate for a fair process rather than serve as advocates for individuals or groups. This advocacy includes lending conflict management support to campus community members experiencing interpersonal conflict with other students, faculty, staff, and groups and in residence. Staff also provide procedural assistance to students engaged in the student conduct appeals process and/ or pursuing a procedural challenge at any point in an adjudication investigation and resolution process. The center also offers restorative justice process options to facilitate healing, repair, and closure for students who engage in behavior that has a negative impact on other individuals and/or the community, excluding Title IX sexual misconduct-related violations. CSU’s approach is a responsive and well-vetted example of how to incorporate conflict coaching into existing resolution practices found along the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008). The center supports individuals as well as student groups, including fraternities and student government, and is instrumental in creating a positive campus climate that contributes to student satisfaction and retention. In one instance coaching proved useful to student government leaders as they sought strategies to work constructively through a difference of opinion related to member ethical behavior. In another instance, coaching was assigned in addition to a traditional adjudication process to help a student consider their conflict triggers and address aggressive roommate behavior. Still another application of conflict coaching involved a female-identified international graduate student in a male-dominated field of study who sought support managing her feelings of panic and despair. She felt she would not be able to graduate with her chosen degree because of volatile communications with her assigned adviser. Conflict coaching was followed by mediation between the student and her adviser to help both gain a broader perspective. The student was ultimately able to better understand where the adviser was coming from and the reasons for conflict to gridlock or escalate. Both committed to the relationship and working through conflicts more constructively and the student reported moving from a place of hopelessness and helplessness to empowerment for future goal attainment. These relatable campus examples help make the case for applications of conflict coaching as standalone or companion offerings for students, faculty, and staff. We thank center staff, including Ashyln Friend, Brooke Wichmann, Ilse Flores, and Melissa Emerson, for informing this content in conversation with Porter (personal communication, spring, 2019).

the art of coaching  

159

Oberlin College Another model program incorporating formal conflict coaching within an ombudsperson role is found at Oberlin College (Ohio). Kimberly Jackson Davidson (personal communication, spring, 2019) has led conflict management practices at Oberlin and shared an overview of coaching applications with Porter in the spring of 1999. Today she serves in a part-time ombudsperson position for faculty, students, and staff, with the balance of her time spent in the Yeworkwha Belachew Dialogue Center, named in honor of the former ombudsperson (and fellow original contributor to Reframing Campus Conflict) who passed in June of 2017. Davidson uses coaching skills over more formal mediation options with faculty and staff as a proactive way to help prepare people to have difficult conversations. As a CINERGY®–trained conflict management coach, she uses coaching concepts such as goal-setting, story-telling, and NSMGR to help visitors (the ombudsperson term for a person seeking conflict support) explore triggers, assumptions, and consequences (Figure 6.2) while practicing new approaches to address conflict with others. Davidson notes the importance of the intake process, during which the visitor can weigh coaching as an option to help identify objectives and envision how they might move forward. Intake also allows the coach to begin developing necessary rapport with the client and ensures respective roles and responsibilities are explained. Terms of confidentiality and the voluntary nature of coaching are further described. Often, this initial step is a precursor to a facilitated dialogue, mediation, or a new way to approach another person. Meetings with the Oberlin ombudsperson align with the International Ombudsman Association Ethical Standards, including an insistence on confidentiality, while navigating the tension created by mandatory reporting expectations in instances of sexual harassment and misconduct under evolving Title IX protocol. Confidentiality and maintaining privacy can present major operational and ethical challenges for ombudspersons, particularly those on today’s college campuses. In addition to reviewing NSMGR, intake conversations focus on questions driven by the seven stages of the CINERGY® coaching model, outlined in Table 6.1 and operationalized at Oberlin as follows: CI: Clarify the goal and inquire about the situation. While not inviting people into formal coaching, this stage is helpful to prompt goal identification and drive future meetings. Visitors are prompted to provide

160   

pathways within the spectrum model

a short description of the situation, followed by deep listening as more details are disclosed. Questions are generated to clarify triggers and help focus attention on the impact of the other party’s words and actions on the visitor, and on the visitor’s assumptions about the other party’s words and actions. Visitors are invited to estimate the current cost of the conflict and the potential future cost/benefit if the conflict is addressed/is not addressed. Visitors are then asked to imagine the possible future with/without a resolution and asked toward the end of this meeting whether anything has changed since the beginning of the conversation, probing for feelings, needs/values/clarity, and goals as seems fitting. N: Name the elements. In this stage questions create a solid foundation for “option generation,” which is essential to ombudsperson work and aligned with future exploring choices (E) work in the CINERGY® model. This introduction is followed by a discussion about what additional services across campus might help the visitor pursue their goal(s). Visitors are also introduced to the ombudsperson resources and the Yeworkwha Belachew Center for Dialogue (YBCD). Additional steps can help prepare the visitor for more ombudsperson or related support by other campus resources. Some who decide to decline third-party interventions like mediation will ask to go through these later elements of the CINERGY® model to prepare for handling the conflict on their own. Others take these steps to prepare for a facilitated conversation or for a full mediation with volunteer mediators. Additional deconstructed steps include the following: E: Explore the options and choices. This helps a client increase awareness toward considering and evaluating optional actions toward goal realization. As noted, clients may enact this step in coaching or may opt to receive information on additional services and resources helpful in reaching their goals. R: Reconstruct the situation. This allows clients to decide what action plan they wish to pursue and what preparation they want or need. This may involve practicing a conversation, envisioning a way of interacting, learning new skills, and otherwise readying themselves to proceed with their action plan. G: Grounding the challenges. This helps clients consider what, if anything, might get in the way of carrying out their plan.

the art of coaching  

161

Y: Yes, commit. This concludes stages by helping clients commit to the plan. It includes variables such as when they will proceed, what they will do before proceeding, and so on. Clients also share their takeaways from each session and what they will work on before the next coaching conversation. Inclusive outreach and relationship-building are cornerstones to coaching and related services, not only across ethnic and gender identities but also into other campus units such as athletics and activities like prism programming for first-year students. Here, there are opportunities to build greater proactive and widespread communication and empathy skills in conflict. As a collaborative partner in Title IX efforts, the ombudsperson and dialogue center have also championed a notable consent campaign (see Box 6.2). Most conflict coaching at Oberlin is with students working through individual internal conflict or conflict management patterns, interpersonal communication matters, and organizational group dynamics. The work includes informal conflict management coaching, some shuttle diplomacy, facilitated (or meditated) conversations, and providing intake for mediation. Campus leaders also find support before, during, or after a situation to help generate options, brainstorm, and engage reality-testing conversations. Dialogue facilitation that draws from coaching skills is also offered for public discussions and for organizations to help with planning or to facilitate difficult conversations. A related offering is the popular Empathy Café (see Box 6.3).

BOX 6.2.

Case in Point

Conflict Coaching Applications Help “Make Consent a Conversation” At Oberlin, conflict coaching applications and tools have paved the way for an innovative program aimed at supporting conversations for consent. Training activities center on sharing scenarios of consent gone wrong to build better future understanding and empathy in situations where consent is required and often awkward to discuss. Oberlin finds that conflict coaching skills are most helpful in carrying out conflict management efforts because they can be adapted and used in a variety of ways to assist visitors to the ombudsperson office as well as those who participate in the “Make Consent a Conversation” campaign.

162   

pathways within the spectrum model

BOX 6.3.

Case in Point

Empathy Café Oberlin College offers an innovative approach to building conflict competence in unique and accessible ways at the Empathy Café. Here, people can experience new situations and are invited to deal with them in ways that increase attention related to the role of human feelings, values, and the willingness to ask questions over making assumptions in conflict. What began as a structured programmatic offering continues to evolve as a more organic student-led space. One notable consequence of the Empathy Café is the positive impact it seems to be having on visits to the Counseling Center, where clients are more apt to present concerns and tell synthesized and well-considered stories rather than “soul bearing” in order to identify objectives and seek effective and timely counseling support. The Empathy Café now serves staff and faculty to provide proactive conflict management skills.

Much of the ombudsperson work at Oberlin, including hybrid coaching approaches, is driven by the student conduct system. The student conduct coordinator and the Title IX coordinator both make referrals to the office. A conduct coordinator has the discretion to refer parties to the Office of the Ombudsperson to explore voluntary mediation services as appropriate. The ombudsperson often performs conduct intake meetings and can assign mediators if appropriate or use shuttle diplomacy or mediated or facilitated conversations to address situations. The Title IX coordinator now operates in a similar manner. With both systems the office has been used as an alternative pathway when harm has been done and a formal process is perceived to risk introducing additional harm rather than yielding a fruitful outcome. Both programs make voluntary referrals at the conclusion of select formal processes as well as to enhance the post-process experience for involved parties. These options are published as policy.

The University of Texas at Austin A third model that draws on input from colleagues formally trained in the CINERGY® model comes from The University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin). According to Ombudsperson and Coach Kouang Chan (personal communication, spring, 2019), a primary directive is to help students resolve

the art of coaching  

163

conflicts with the university, including conflicts related to academic concerns with teaching assistants and advisers. The ombudsperson refers visitors to campus services and helps students understand policies and procedures and how to be more effective in communication. The ombudsperson does some facilitation work with student groups and coaches student leaders to handle conflicts with their student organizations. They also work one on one with graduates and undergraduates and may help mediate and facilitate organizational conflict. At UT Austin, the ombudsperson is not directly involved in student conduct practices per se, but they will consult with and coach students to help them understand what to expect in terms of rules and process before they go into a conduct meeting. Sometimes, students return to the ombudsperson after the conduct meeting for further understanding and processing. There is also a faculty ombudsperson dedicated to working with faculty when in conflict with one another or with a student. The ombudsperson does presentations and workshops to support the mission to be a first-class research institution and partners with campus organizations and departments to further goals for more effective communication. Conflict coaching and consulting is used to help visitors expand their thinking about their situations and conflict. For example, visitors might be asked to consider other reasons faculty might treat the student in a certain way to expand their perspective and build empathy and understanding as well as understand strategies to engage the conflict more productively. The ombudsperson office also provides feedback to departments about themes or patterns emerging without compromising confidentiality. The ombudsperson office has been asked to facilitate dialogue on equity, diversity, and inclusivity with various student groups and university committees, including those that serve first-generation students. While much of this chapter focuses on undergraduate students, informal and hybrid applications of the CINERGY® model, together with communication coaching, have been introduced with graduate students to aid communication with academic advisers (personal communication, spring 2019). In addition to the schools named, the colleges and universities listed in Box 6.4 feature conflict coaching by name in an online search across student life, ombudsperson, and academic programs. Other institutions house an ombudsperson to support undergraduate and/or graduate one-on-one student conflict management and resolution, including the University of Maryland, Georgetown University, California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), Purdue University, University of Kansas Medical Center, Duke University, Baylor University, and Florida State University.

164   

pathways within the spectrum model

BOX 6.4.

Institutions Identified to Offer Conflict Coaching

Colorado State University, Student Resolution Center Indiana University, Office of Student Conduct Division of Student Affairs James Madison University, Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices Loyola University, Chicago, Office of Student Conduct & Conflict Resolution, Division of Student Development (OSCCR) Michigan State University, Department of Student Life Missouri State University, Center for Dispute Resolution in the Department of Communication North Carolina State University, Student Ombudsperson Services Nova Southeastern University (FL), Division of Student Affairs and the College of Undergraduate Studies Oberlin College and Conservatory Yeworkwha Belachew Center for Dialogue coordinated by the Office of Ombudsperson South Texas College, Student Activities and Support Services Southern Methodist University, Center for Mediation and Conflict Resolution in the Simmons School of Education and Human Development Temple University, Student Conduct and Community Standards, Division of Student Affairs, Conflict Education Resource Team (CERT) The University of Texas at Austin, Ombuds Offices University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Ombuds Office, Resolution Services for Conflicts and Concerns University of Michigan, Office of Student Conflict Resolution University of Toronto, Housing University of Vermont, Center for Student Conduct Western Illinois University, Student Rights, Responsibilities, and Retention Initiatives

Lessons to Transform Conflict Cultures and Enhance Missions of Inclusive Excellence Advocacy for expanded conflict management options including coaching requires infrastructure, institutionalization, and capacity-building. The work needs to be shouldered by more than one unit and a handful of (or often just one) staff member in order to be sustainable. Natural staff attrition, together

the art of coaching  

165

with a cyclic student body, can pose unique challenges, as can moving to added online services. As Oberlin, CSU, and UT Austin exemplify, the effort of implementing a full range of creative and hybrid conflict management efforts championed at all institutional levels can transform communities and is well worth the investment. At CSU principles of inclusion, integrity, respect, and social justice are central to the Conflict Resolution Center and are visibly represented within the office and across programs, publications, and websites. Trained staff provide a nonjudgmental space to protect and value the integrity of each person and are mindful that students across identities often come into the office feeling shamed by behavior. Collaboration is also a major component of CSU’s conflict resolution and restorative justice mission, including partnerships with university housing, student legal services, local municipal courts, campus police, and the Office of Diversity. They work with off-campus life and residences and coordinate with Fort Collins police regarding off-campus residence. Staff also partner with student case management offices to assist students who are in crisis, and a student consult team, together with representatives from different offices, invest in an inclusive approach by coming together to review students of concern, brainstorm resources, and support referrals. Staff also sit on an employee consult team, with a similar role for campus staff, and serve on the Bias Support team to help deal with reported allegations of bias. A Campus West Station is an off-campus group to deal with code enforcement. CSU staff use the Intercultural Conflict Style inventory to further a commitment to inclusive excellence. There are various ways to approach conflict that might not be appropriate or effective across all ­cultures. When they promote conflict resolution to groups who may experience marginalization, the staff communicates that there is no one way to approach conflict and tailors work with individuals and groups based on their identified needs. CSU has a predominantly White student body. Most students are from in state. The staff recognizes that they are able to promote social justice and have a unique opportunity to engage with and improve access to services for groups whose experiences are part of a counter-narrative and often not affirmed on campus. Similar institutionalization and collaboration are found at both Oberlin and UT Austin where ombudspersons work to model a transformative mission by helping visitors transform their own lives while navigating conflict. While conflict coaching should “sit” at the beginning of a conflict as a first step to navigating concerns and disarming conflict dynamics, staff across units should be cross trained and widely accessible in order to institutionalize practices. While not every staff member needs to be a certified conflict coach, building conflict capacity and transforming

166 pathways within the spectrum model    a culture requires broad training about the purpose and applications of conflict coaching. Davidson cites student success programs, accessibility, or disability resource programs, care team case managers, class deans, and student conduct officers as benefiting from acquiring coaching skills both informally and through voluntary conflict management coaching training (Davidson, personal communication, spring 2019).

Conclusion As process options and resolution tools go, conflict coaching has become a mainstay in the field of conflict management and grown immeasurably since the early 2000s. It is a process that has a lot to offer to our educational and academic institutions. Coaching in general has long been embraced across fields as a valuable and marketable one-on-one approach to building skills and confidence while empowering people to reach personal and professional goals. And while it is not about score-keeping, conflict coaching as an expression of inclusive excellence earns points in relation to accessibility and inclusion in that it brings an often costly and highly respected skill-building opportunity previously available to only high-level managers and elite businesses to students and other campus stakeholders (Jones & Brinkert, 2008). Few process options have the same potential to build the capacity of students in ways that grow with them as professionals. Once introduced to coaching, they can likely find accessible and well-regarded related coaching support in the workforce or as graduate students. Conflict coaching is also appealing in that it promotes the value of personal conflict resolution skills in a nonthreatening way. Mediation and other face-to-face processes, while valuable, can be intimidating. Being coached one on one to handle conflict effectively without the formality of a mediated session between parties is often more inviting for students who might otherwise simply say no to existing resolution options and ignore a growing conflict until it escalates and becomes destructive to individuals and communities alike. Learning coaching skills and models is within the wheelhouse of many campus administrators and educators genuinely invested in supporting others in conflict, and it is not particularly time intensive. Those already practicing conflict resolution and management options, including facilitation, intergroup dialogue, mediation, and restorative justice, will find common themes and skill sets transferable to the coaching setting. Conflict coaching is a natural extension of many existing skills, and while guided by specialized ethical principles and structured using tailored steps, techniques, and skills, campus stakeholders will find a common practical and

the art of coaching  

167

philosophical approach here on which to build both in-person and online services. Finally, conflict coaching offers one-on-one interpersonal support with the potential to build both individual and systemic conflict capacity. The idea is that individuals can be empowered through coaching to safely develop more self-awareness of their conflict styles, triggers, and interdependent role in community with others, while building more effective skills to practice and refine in future conflicts. Building individual capacity contributes in turn to advancing conflict competence in communities, where individuals are better equipped overall to manage and resolve conflict without thirdparty intervention. When we first published, process options like conflict coaching, dialogue, and facilitation received less attention as informal outliers along the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008). The role of an ombuds­ person was absent entirely from the first edition, as was the rise of mindfulness as a practice to calm and focus in the moment. As it turns out, these previously underutilized options are proving to be particularly popular as we enter 2020 and anticipate a post-pandemic decade of unprecedented disruption, conflict, and change management. Maybe it is no wonder that after a decade of unprecedented externally prescribed process guidance, litigation, and parental oversight, students are eager to build conflict capacity and learn the skills needed to manage their own issues more constructively without third-party intervention as they make their way down an uneven and uncharted academic path and out into the professional world.

Summary Coaching is on the rise. Life, business, and executive coaching offer some familiar examples. Conflict coaching is a specific niche of coaching aimed at helping individuals build conflict capacity one on one with a trained conflict coach. The practice originated out of an interest to provide conflict support in instances where one party is invested in personal and/or professional growth managing conflict independently or when one but not both/ all parties are willing or ready to engage in processes such as facilitated dialogue, mediation, or restorative justice conferences and circles. Cinnie Noble’s CINERGY® model, with roots in coaching, dispute resolution, and neuroscience fields, and the comprehensive conflict coaching model that grew up from higher education applications championed by Tricia Jones at Temple University (PA) are two leading models. Training and credentials in each model are available, as are professional endorsements

168 pathways within the spectrum model    through membership in international coaching associations, but conflict coaches do not require certification. Those called to coach bear the responsibility, however, to build trustworthy practices that empower people to more constructively and effectively manage conflict in their lives without direct third-party intervention. Common guidelines and principles in coaching and related ombudsperson practice advance expectations that facilitators demonstrate capacity related to respect, impartiality, privacy, equity, and care. Conflict coaching training is often sought by trained educational, community, legal, and human resource professionals looking to expand their conflict resolution skill sets and process offerings. This includes organizational ombudspersons who endorse principles of informality, confidentiality, impartiality, and independence in support of “visitors” who seek their counsel to manage and resolve conflict. Similarly, campus and human resource administrators looking to expand process options for providing conflict support on a one-on-one basis are drawn to conflict coaching principles and practices. Originally introduced as an up and coming periphery process along the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008), conflict coaching in higher education continues to have growing appeal as part of an integrated conflict management program. Conflict coaching is an accessible way to support people in conflict to build individual capacity to better engage conflict often without the need for direct third-party intervention or escalated resolution options found along the spectrum.

Questions for Reflection and Dialogue 1. What are two leading conflict coaching models in practice today, and what distinguishes one from the other in terms of their history, influences, and practice applications? 2. What are the four standards of practice and ethical principles of the IOA that guide ombudspersons’ practice and by extension inform the work of conflict coaches who may work in partnership with ombudspersons and student conduct and Title IX practitioners? What uniquely challenges confidentiality as an ethical principle and what are some ways to navigate the tension? 3. In what ways might conflict coaching support institutional inclusive excellence efforts related to diversity and inclusion and retention and equity? What push-back might you anticipate and how can you be proactive in your inquiry to evolve conflict coaching on campus?

the art of coaching  

169

4. Name a favorite application of conflict coaching found in this chapter. How might you introduce a related initiative on your own campus in ways that are collaborative; sustainable; principled/ethical; and aligned with inclusive missions, visions, and strategic plans that speak to furthering integrated conflict management options across a spectrum of expanded process options? 5. What partnerships exist on your campus that might help champion conflict coaching as a process option, and what training and resources will you use to inform a direction forward? 6. Why is conflict coaching so well suited for busy campus administrators, faculty, and students and what unique applications and partnerships come to mind for residential students and student organizations?

References Brinkert, R. (1999, July). Challenges and opportunities for a campus conflict education program. Paper presented at the Conflict Resolution in Education Network (CREnet) Conference, Boston, MA. Brock, V. (2009). Professional challenges facing the coaching field from an historical perspective. International Journal of Coaching Organizations, 7(1), 27–37. Eckerd College. (n.d.) Conflict dynamics profile. http://www.conflictdynamics.org/ cdp/ Hosea, R. (2008). Unpublished presentation at the Donald D. Gehring Academy for Student Conduct Administration, Salt Lake City, UT. International Association of Coaching (2018, March). The essence of coaching as a transformative process. The Essence of Coaching as a Transformative Process. https://certifiedcoach.org/essence-coaching-transformative-process/ International Coach Federation. (n.d.). About ICF? https://coachfederation.org/ about#:~:text=As%20the%20world’s%20largest%20organization,to%20 succeed%20in%20their%20careers. Lukianoff, G. & Haidt, J. (2018). The coddling of the American mind: How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure. Penguin. Jones, T. S., & Brinkert, R. (2008). Conflict coaching: Conflict management strategies and skills for the individual. SAGE. Katz, N., & Kovack, L. (2016). Higher education’s current state of alternative dispute resolution services for students. Journal of Conflict Management, 4(1), 5–37. Mauriello, L. & Pierson, M. C. S. (2018). Facilitating conflict resolution. In J. ­Hudson, A. Acosta & R. C. Holmes (Eds.), Conduct and community: A residence life practitioner’s guide (pp. 217–255). ACUHO-I. Miller, C. C., & Bromwich, J. E. (2019, March 16). How parents are robbing their children of adulthood. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/16/ style/snowplow-parenting-scandal.html

170   

pathways within the spectrum model

Noble, C. (2011). Conflict management coaching: The CINERGY® model. ­CINERGY® Coaching. Noble, C. (2000/2020). Coaching operating principles of the CINERGY model of conflict management [Unpublished training manual]. CYNERGY® Coaching. Schrage, J. M., & Thompson, M. C. (2008, June). Using a social justice model for conflict resolution to ensure access for all students. Paper presented at the Donald D. Gehring Academy for Student Conduct Administration, Salt Lake City, UT. Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument. CPP, Inc.

7 F A C I L I TAT E D D I A L O G U E An Introduction and Overview for Campus Conflict Management Jay K. Wilgus and Ryan C. Holmes Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal. —Martin Luther King Jr.

Introduction As the natural byproduct of competing thoughts, ideas, beliefs, perceptions, and backgrounds (Rabie, 1994), conflict is an inevitable part of campus life. Most often, it disrupts the status quo in ways that promote growth, learning, and development while expanding the limits of what is known and what is possible. Other times conflict impedes the institutional mission and causes harm to members of the campus community. In the realm of peace research, scholars draw a distinction in this regard that differentiates negative peace from positive peace (Grewal, 2003). Negative peace, according to one scholar, can be understood as “the absence of violence . . . or war,” whereas positive peace is “the integration of human society” through restored relationships, social systems that serve the whole population, and constructive conflict resolution” (Galtung, 1964, p. 2). Under this rubric, peace is not merely the absence of conflict, but the presence of systems, processes, and structures that support all populations equitably and that help groups and individuals address conflict in a peaceful manner (Grewal, 2003). The spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) approach to campus conflict management strives for positive peace by providing the tools necessary to produce, support, and sustain it. This chapter revisits one of those tools: facilitated dialogue. The first section provides a working definition of 171

172 pathways within the spectrum model    facilitated dialogue, a primer on the purpose and utility of facilitated dialogue on college campuses, and a description of the characteristics of conflict situations that are well-suited for facilitated dialogue. The second section describes the facilitator’s role and responsibilities, basic facilitation techniques, and a framework for choosing the right facilitator(s) to intervene in a situational conflict. The last section reviews six key aspects of facilitated dialogue that help foster inclusive and equitable communities where positive peace is possible: multipartiality, diversity, intercultural awareness, identity awareness, shared power, and safe spaces. This chapter is not intended as a substitute for appropriate training or as an exhaustive explanation of the topic. Readers who wish to practice facilitated dialogue or learn more about it are encouraged to consult the resources cited.

Facilitated Dialogue: The Basics The term facilitated dialogue refers to a conversation between two or more individuals or groups in which a trained multipartial facilitator helps parties overcome communicative barriers and engage in conversation regarding issues of mutual interest or concern. It is a method of interacting whereby individuals and groups learn to communicate in, and through, conflict. As described in this chapter, facilitated dialogue is a process convened in response to specific campus events or incidents that require attention. Although facilitated dialogue shares similarities with the intergroup dialogue processes discussed in chapter 5 and the more facilitative and transformative mediation models addressed in chapter 8, it is distinguishable from those practices in several ways. Unlike mediation, facilitated dialogue is not designed to produce a set of agreements related to issues of mutual interest or concern. Rather, facilitated dialogue is about listening and sharing in a manner that produces deeper levels of insight and understanding regarding oneself and others and that supports collaboration within inclusive communities. And, although mediation and facilitated dialogue can both be used as reactive process options in response to a campus incident, intergroup dialogue processes may not be. Intergroup dialogue programs are deliberate, intentional, forwardlooking initiatives that focus on developing understanding between one or more social group identities, building relationships where there may not be any, and promoting critical self-awareness. Intergroup dialogues are not convened in response to an incident, but as part of a programmatic effort to prepare participants to communicate and collaborate across difference while serving as effective advocates and allies for social justice (Zúñiga et al., 2007).

facilitated dialogue  

173

As described in chapter 5, dialogue differs from debate or discussion. Debate and discussion typically involve some form of persuasion, whereas dialogue focuses on listening, learning, and understanding. Although dialogue does not require a facilitator, one can be helpful in situations where there is low trust, heightened emotions, entrenched interests, power imbalances, identity differences, multiple stakeholders, or a history of unsuccessful attempts at dialogue. Given the political climate in the United States and the divisive issues being discussed on campus, these situations are increasingly common.

Purpose and Utility Conflict on campus takes countless forms, ranging from lively classroom debate to protests involving multiple stakeholders, widespread media coverage, public scrutiny, and, occasionally, physical harm. Following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, campuses experienced an increase in politically contentious discourse and viewpoints expressing hate, marginalization, and supremacy. On August 11, 2017, for example, a graduate of the University of Virginia (UVA) named Richard Spencer led a torchlight procession of nearly 200 marchers whose chanting espoused anti-Semitic and White supremacist ideology (Heim, 2018). The following day in Charlottesville brought violent clashes and the death of civil rights activist Heather Heyer after a man with neo-Nazi ties drove his car into a group of counter protesters of the Unite the Right rally (Heim, 2018). A series of incidents at the University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley), in 2017 and 2019 involved similar tension and violence (Borba, 2019). On February 19, 2019, a volunteer for Turning Point USA, a conservative political action group, who was tabling on the UC Berkeley campus, was assaulted by a man who took issue with the volunteer’s “This is MAGA Country” and “Hate Crimes Hoaxes Hurt Real Victims” messaging (Borba, 2019). Examples involving gender bias and discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender expression continue to surface as well, as institutions attempt to remain compliant with evolving case law and federal regulations concerning Title IX (the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination at educational institutions receiving federal funding). These events and those like them highlight the growing need for sustained civil discourse and facilitated dialogue. The challenge for administrators lies not in finding a way to end or control all campus conflict, but in finding innovative ways to transform or reframe conflicts into opportunities for resolution and ongoing management. Facilitated dialogue processes can assist in that effort by creating opportunities for peace and relationship

174 pathways within the spectrum model    building. As an option within the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008), facilitated dialogue has the power to convene opposing parties and bring them to the table. It can create respect where there was none and produce harmony among enemies. Moreover, facilitated dialogue can serve as the broad brush needed to formally address expansive campus conflicts involving multiple stakeholders or as the informal mechanism for transforming competition into collaboration among a few who need help. The key for administrators is knowing which situations call for its usage and how the process ought to be conducted once the decision is made to proceed.

Applications Equipped with the understanding that facilitated dialogue is an essential pathway in the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008), campus administrators must still work with parties to help determine which situations allow for facilitated dialogue and which do not. This section is intended to explain how to do that by describing two fact patterns that frequently arise—in one form or another—on college campuses nationwide. Consider the following two scenarios and try to determine which is better suited for facilitated dialogue over more formal, third party-led mediation. Assume you work in a campus unit focused on conflict management and it is your job to determine the most constructive and effective course of action forward. Please note that the following scenarios involve language and subject matter (specifically, anti-Semitism and intolerance displayed toward members of LGBTQ+ community) that may be difficult for some readers. Your quick analysis of the cases in Box 7.1 and Box 7.2 reveal that in Scenario #1, involving Isaac and Jackson, the conflict arose in the residence halls where a support team, including a resident assistant, hall director, and others, are likely available to assist. The conflict appears to be limited to two roommates who share a desire to resolve what lies between them and continue living together. Scenario #2, in contrast, has evolved in the public eye and involves constituents on and off campus. Since neither the politician nor the owner of The Funky Chicken are subject to institutional policy or process, it is not immediately clear how the situation might be addressed. Campus administrators, however, likely know that a response is needed and recognize the conflict as a valuable opportunity to educate various constituencies about social identity, inclusion, and political impact while improving the campus climate for all students, particularly those who have been marginalized or impacted by the owner of The Funky Chicken. In these ways, Scenario #1 appears to be well suited for mediation because it involves identifiable stakeholders who need help resolving a factual dispute (i.e., how the swastika may have gotten on the whiteboard) and other issues

facilitated dialogue  

175

BOX 7.1.

Scenario #1: The Whiteboard Strikes Again

Late one night in a residence hall, the community is disturbed when a student finds a swastika drawn on his whiteboard, takes a picture of it, and reports it to the resident assistant (Kamal). It is believed that other students may have seen it, but the reporting student (Isaac) is unsure. Not wanting to disrupt the community any more than it may have been already, Isaac told Kamal that he was not going to mention it to anyone else; however, Isaac was adamant his roommate (Jackson) was the person responsible and that a change in roommate may be best. When Kamal questioned Isaac more, Isaac offered that Jackson had stated his dislike for Israel on more than one occasion even after Isaac informed Jackson of his Jewish heritage. Jackson was questioned about his involvement in the swastika incident; he vehemently denied any involvement, and refused to switch rooms. He claims Isaac misinterpreted his prior comments about Israel and that he enjoys Isaac’s company. There were no cameras in the halls to prove any responsibility and both Isaac and Jackson have said they’d like to remain roommates if they can resolve their differences.

BOX 7.2.

Scenario #2: Hard to Swallow

During a recent local political election, the owner of a popular campus eatery (The Funky Chicken) known for his stances against the LGBTQ+ community gave a glowing endorsement of a political candidate. Members of the LGBTQ+ community expressed concern regarding the endorsement and wondered how a politician could accept an endorsement from someone who seeks to exclude and marginalize portions of the community. Months later, the student newspaper at Progressive University reported that The Funky Chicken placed a bid to be the next oncampus vendor, as the campus was expanding its food options. Noting the owner’s stance regarding the LGBTQ+ community, students, faculty, staff, and many alumni engaged in a protest at the politician’s office and at the campus administration building to show their displeasure for The Funky Chicken on campus. Since others supported the politician and believed The Funky Chicken could provide a popular food option, the campus and surrounding community became torn. Aware of the growing concerns, campus administrators are searching for a sensible way to proceed and hear various constituents before continuing the bid process.

176 pathways within the spectrum model    of mutual concern. Mediation, although not appropriate as a method for investigating the swastika incident or other potential policy violations, would likely be useful in this conflict because Isaac and Jackson want structured help resolving the issues between them. Assuming they can resolve what happened with the whiteboard incident and agree on other things informally or in writing, like room usage and how they interact, they will likely find it much easier to live together moving forward. Scenario #2, on the other hand, appears to be better suited for a multiparty facilitated dialogue process because it involves a larger group of stakeholders whose interests cover an array of perspectives. The process of convening a facilitated dialogue would help identify which stakeholders need to be at the table, while more inclusively uncovering the underlying interests of various stakeholders. In the end, it may turn out that Scenario #2 calls for multiple facilitated dialogues: one within the LGBTQ+ student group, one within the food services department, one among a cross section of student leaders who are respected in the community, and yet another involving a select group of individuals representing each major constituency. The one certainty is that this situation calls for quick intervention because of the impact it is having on campus and in the community. A facilitated dialogue pathway provides the tools needed for campus administrators to bring this conflict into focus and begin working toward resolution. Facilitated dialogue is a valuable pathway in the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) because it is flexible, expandable, and focused on creating understanding. It produces dialogue from conflict and gets parties moving toward positive peace. But organizing a facilitated dialogue requires more than simply pulling a conflict management tool from the toolbox. In keeping with the aims of inclusive excellence, it requires a sophisticated understanding of the facilitator’s role, facilitation techniques, and more.

The Role of a Facilitator A facilitator exists in the facilitated dialogue context as a multipartial third party that helps parties communicate. In the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008), this is the first pathway in which a third party is called upon to facilitate a conflict resolution process. It is the facilitator’s responsibility to guide the dialogue in a way that helps parties overcome communicative barriers and keep them moving forward productively (Hogan, 2002). This section discusses the primary responsibilities of a facilitator, several facilitation techniques, and various factors to consider when choosing a facilitator.

facilitated dialogue  

177

Facilitator Responsibilities There are multiple responsibilities for the facilitator to balance in a facilitated dialogue, but the primary areas of focus (Landrum, 2003) are as follows: Determining who will be consistent participants in the conversation and who will appear as necessary Establishing an appropriate meeting schedule Developing a list of topics for discussion and deciding how to prioritize them Eliciting the participants’ acceptance to simple ground rules, such as {{ taking turns talking; {{ treating each other with dignity and respect; and {{ avoiding name calling Summarizing, reframing, and recording key comments in a manner visible to the participants Reframing adversarial propositions or positions into open-ended inquiries designed to discover solutions Summarizing the progress made by the group Sensing when interactions cease to be productive and intervening to return the group to effective dialogue or moving to another, more easily manageable topic Structuring issues or positions in terms of underlying interests Organizing topics to achieve early consensus on less-difficult issues, thus giving the participants a sense of accomplishment and progress Preparing appropriate written minutes or summaries of each session for review and reference Ensuring separation between dialogue and decision-making as distinct processes Creating and maintaining a safe space for all participants to improve the likelihood that all voices are heard in the process Noticing when participants and/or voices are being marginalized in the process and actively working to balance power in the room In addition, the facilitator is often responsible for one of the most difficult parts of a facilitated dialogue (i.e., convening the meeting) (Carlson, 1999). This includes the following: Working with identifiable stakeholders to determine who needs to be present Selecting an appropriate location that feels comfortable and safe for all stakeholders

178   

pathways within the spectrum model

Inviting parties to participate in the dialogue Having a back-up plan should some committed parties opt not to attend If a facilitator can accomplish these things, then they have served the parties well. Although the facilitator need not be a certified and dedicated conflict management professional, they must have some basic training in process design, facilitator responsibilities, facilitation techniques, cultural competence, social justice, and the nature of conflict and conflict resolution work.

Facilitation Techniques In addition to understanding a facilitator’s responsibilities, the facilitator should also have a strong grasp of key facilitation techniques, including modeling, reflective listening, and displaying empathy (McCain & Tobey, 2007). Modeling One of the most important things for a facilitator to do is model the behavior that they hope to instill in the parties. In doing so, the facilitator helps teach participants how to construct and maintain a successful and inclusive dialogue. The facilitator can use this method to show participants the importance of displaying an attentive body posture, giving eye contact as a show of attention, and displaying how the control of other nonverbal behaviors can aid in positive interaction between parties (Olshak, 2001). It can also be used to demonstrate curiosity and a desire to understand. By letting participants explain what they mean and attempting to promote a shared understanding of each party’s perspectives and experiences, the facilitator can set a tone of patience, respect, and acceptance while encouraging continued progress in the dialogue (Cheldelin & Lucas, 2004). Reflective listening Another way to avoid miscommunication and faulty assumptions is to use reflective listening. Under this method, the facilitator—seeking to understand what a party has shared—reflects and restates what was said and seeks confirmation from the party. Reflective listening can also be used to summarize a larger aspect of the conversation prior to moving on to a different topic or before asking follow-up questions (Olshak, 2001). In practice, reflective listening can limit the amount of meaning that gets lost in translation. For example, if something may be misunderstood due to language

facilitated dialogue  

179

barriers, intercultural disconnects, or contrasting identities, the facilitator can help parties understand each other by reflectively listening and asking the speaker to confirm their intended message. The facilitator could then ask other participants if they understand or if they have any clarifying questions. Reflectively listening in this way slows down the communication process to make sure all participants feel heard and that nothing they are trying to convey is misunderstood by others. Displaying empathy Finally, a lot can be gained in a facilitated dialogue if both the facilitator and the participants display empathy. Empathy, “showing understanding and respect for someone else’s views, values, and emotions” (McKearnan & Fairman, 1999, p. 339) can help participants see each other as helpers in a process rather than adversaries. Displaying empathy does not mean one party agrees with the views of another. Empathy means that parties display understanding and respect even if they disagree. Through this method, the ­dialogue can be productive as well as aid in maintaining equal power between parties. Although relatively easy to conceptualize, these techniques are more difficult to apply in practice—especially in a conflict that involves multiple stakeholders and identities. The following guidelines are provided to help administrators collaborate with campus and community members who may have the skills necessary to lead a productive dialogue.

Choosing a Facilitator Choosing a facilitator can become overly complicated if rigid credential requirements discount skill sets already possessed by many student affairs administrators, educators, and students with backgrounds in communication, conflict resolution, intercultural awareness, identity development, and student development. Although certified internal or external conflict management professionals may be desirable in some situations, they are not necessarily required, particularly if it removes facilitated dialogue as a timely and responsive process option exercised in good faith. A person may be an excellent facilitator for a situational conflict by virtue of their overall objective demeanor, positional power, or communication skills. A person may also be a good facilitator if they are well respected among participants and are likely to bring composure, wisdom, and relational facilitation skills to the process. In some situations, it may be helpful to utilize two facilitators. Pairing two qualified individuals to serve as cofacilitators can bring additional skill, experience, and diversity to a dialogue. While distinct from facilitated

180 pathways within the spectrum model    dialogue, many restorative justice processes with a similarly heavy emphasis on dialogue over decision-making, endorse a cofacilitator model that helps demonstrate an emphasis on collaboration and can often better account for balanced representation across identities. Some mediation models also promote a co-mediated process for these reasons. The following factors should be considered in choosing a facilitator regardless of the model used: Perceived appropriateness and multipartiality: To effectively facilitate dialogue among parties in conflict, a facilitator must be perceived by the parties as an appropriate choice. Parties, for example, will not accept a facilitator with clear bias or conflicts of interest that suggest favoring one party or one presented position in the conflict over another. Moreover, parties need a reasonable expectation that the facilitator can serve in a multipartial manner. As introduced in chapter 3, multipartial practice requires a facilitator to reflect on, recognize, elicit, and challenge often deep-seated underlying assumptions about a situational conflict or the participants, including assumptions that may test the facilitator’s own background experiences, identities, or biases. All participants must believe the facilitator is capable of unbiased, multipartial facilitation or they are unlikely to engage. For this reason, it is critical that the administrators responsible for selecting the facilitator be intentional in considering how the facilitator will be perceived by the parties and whether they will be viewed as an appropriate choice given their social identity(ies), their role on campus or off, their connection to the parties or issues, and their ability to practice in a multipartial manner. Some processes allow for a chosen facilitator to be vetted by participants ahead of time and removed if parties voice a concern. Skill and experience: The right facilitator should have a principled, working understanding of a facilitator’s responsibilities, facilitation techniques, and collaborative problem-solving strategies, especially if the group(s) anticipate(s) a high level of in-room conflict. Some experience with the substantive issues can also be helpful in situations where the subject matter is unique or not easily understood. They must also be comfortable anticipating and responding to the very real emotions that may present in facilitated dialogue and help participants avoid destructive triggers and related emotional flooding that may sidetrack or derail constructive dialogue altogether and leave participants harmed and vulnerable long after the session is over. Chapter 6 develops this content in more detail.

facilitated dialogue  

181

Cost: In many situations, a facilitator can be found among the group of individuals responsible for supervising, advising, or managing the parties in conflict. If not, and if no one else on campus can serve as a volunteer facilitator, then it may be necessary to look off campus to a community partner who can be hired to facilitate a dialogue. The institution should account for viable facilitators in budgeting if value is seen in the process. The selection process for the facilitator ought to result in a decision that is acceptable to all parties, but it should not interfere with the process itself. Some conflicts require immediate attention, so it would be imprudent to delay facilitated dialogue to find the “ideal” facilitator. In those situations, it is wise to find the best possible person in the moment and get the parties talking. A change can be made later if necessary. Many student affairs professionals, as well as faculty, peers, and campus religious leaders, for instance, are capable of being excellent facilitators, so long as they possess the skills and attributes described in this section. A meaningful skills-based training course in mediation or facilitation and an understanding of the dynamics described next can prove enough preparation for an aspiring facilitator to serve as a multipartial third party in many campus conflicts. The point of this less formal process option along the spectrum model is that interventions can be offered without administrative delay and facilitation can be led by readily available members of the community in conflict, so long as they demonstrate the necessary capacity for inclusive facilitated dialogue.

Promoting Inclusive Excellence and Social Justice There are six additional aspects of facilitated dialogue that are essential and that facilitators must understand to meaningfully advance a working model of inclusive excellence and the cause of social justice. By ignoring them, a facilitator can materially alter the outcome of a conversation or cause a vital stakeholder to disengage entirely. This section examines each in turn: multipartiality, diversity, intercultural awareness, identity awareness, power in the session, and safe spaces.

Multipartiality As endorsed throughout this publication, multipartiality (the ability to support parties equitably across identities and actively account for power imbalance and marginalized experiences) is preferred over impartiality (the

182 pathways within the spectrum model    appearance, or expression, of being neutral through the duration of a process). Multipartiality creates space in which all participants, regardless of identity, can meaningfully participate without real or perceived risk of negative consequences. It also allows parties, including the facilitator, to identify spoken or unspoken bias and consider the conflict from fresh angles, while helping improve communication across difference. A multipartial facilitator demonstrates that social identity impacts how conflict is observed, experienced, and addressed, and that there is more than one way to view a conflict (Gadlin & Sturm, 2007). As a third party without a direct stake in the conflict, the facilitator can constructively challenge implicit or explicit bias by restating and reframing language in a way that de-escalates a potentially defensive response while encouraging empathy and shared meaning-making. Similarly, a multipartial facilitator recognizes sociopolitical factors impacting a given conflict, including events reported in the news that occur far off campus. For example, in managing the scenario described in Box 7.1 involving roommates Isaac and Jackson, a multipartial facilitator will likely recognize the conflict as arising during a period of increased anti-Semitism in the United States and find ways to supportively challenge any comments or behavior by Jackson that cause Isaac to feel unsafe. Likewise, campus administrators managing the scenario in Box 7.2 involving The Funky Chicken may recognize the conflict as arising during a period when LGBTQ+ rights are being rolled back by state and federal entities and find ways to more actively support LGBTQ+ participants. A skilled multipartial facilitator utilizes opportunities to bring these matters to the surface so the parties in conflict do not dwell in the past or ruminate on conflicts well out of their immediate control, both things that will impede future-oriented progress. Practicing multipartiality is challenging. One key concern with using a multipartial approach is that participants can feel as though they are not getting equal attention. This can lead to criticism of the facilitator’s actions or words (Straus, 1999) and overall credibility. If this occurs, it is the facilitator’s responsibility to validate such thoughts rather than become defensive (Straus, 1999). A skilled facilitator can engage critical participants in a way that redirects the energy back into the group for the positive benefit of everyone while allowing a space for private party and facilitator reflection and self-critique. In the end, all participants must feel heard and supported for the dialogue to be perceived as universally successful.

Diversity Facilitators working for social justice from a framework of inclusive excellence must have a functional understanding of diversity and how social group

facilitated dialogue  

183

identity can show up in conflict. In addition to differences among social identities, each individual and social group will have a diversity of opinions and views. Although each difference presents a potential source of conflict, it also creates an opportunity for people to construct unique and holistic solutions to shared issues while strengthening relationships and deepening mutual understanding. A skilled multipartial facilitator will recognize and leverage differences between parties constructively even if those differences initially present as barriers or impediments to forward progress. A facilitator on campus will also recognize all parties contributing to the dialogue as valuable members of the community whether their perspectives are consistent with the majority or not. 

Intercultural Awareness Intercultural awareness is similarly important in facilitating a dialogue. As the United States becomes more culturally diverse and increasingly more integrated, colleges and universities undergo comparable changes. As such, administrators and facilitators must develop intercultural awareness and recognize the ethnocentric view from which communication patterns often originate. Individuals tend to interpret and/or judge other groups and situations through their own meaning-making systems (Borisoff & Victor, 1998). This is true on a regional and national scale, and within college environments that produce a variety of subcultures. Areas of intercultural awareness to be accounted for include, but are not limited to, language differences, place (i.e., where a person comes from and the way they manipulate that environment), the way a person interprets the world around them, and nonverbal communication behavior (Borisoff & Victor, 1998). Though the facilitator will not understand everything there is to know about all cultures, an increased level of intercultural awareness will allow the facilitator to be vulnerable and transparent about the potential impact of their own identities in the process, use their role more effectively, and increase the likelihood of facilitating a positive interaction among participants. Self-awareness and intercultural awareness are even more salient today than a decade ago with the emergence of the Black Lives Matter movement, #MeToo, nationwide concern for undocumented students, and the renewed focus on Title IX, which has shifted how colleges and universities respond to sexual or gender-based misconduct—including how they support transgender students. Newer still is the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and surfacing of existing and often identity-based tensions between national and global interests. Each underscores the continued importance of ongoing capacity-building related to intercultural awareness in facilitating dialogue on campus.

184   

pathways within the spectrum model

Identity Awareness The multipartial facilitator must understand how social identity impacts parties in conflict, including how it influences perceptions of conflict, behavior and power within it, relationships between parties, and the perceived viability of proposed solutions. A multipartial facilitator must stay attuned to ways in which social identity differences can create oppressive dynamics during the dialogue and seek to eliminate or counterbalance them. For example, consider a facilitated dialogue between two students, one of whom identifies as an African American female and the other as a Caucasian male. The male student in this example requests “respectful” communication as part of the opening ground rules. At its face, respectful dialogue between parties is a cornerstone of a facilitated process. Digging deeper, however, a multipartial facilitator might test the shared meaning of “respectful” through a lens that recognizes that the request could potentially be rooted in conscious or unconscious bias and stereotype. Respect in this case could look like a Euro-centric, masculine approach to dialogue that prioritizes cognition over emotion and results over relationships. As such, a respectful process from this vantage point may inadvertently trigger an agenda that acts to chill the participation of the female student if she does not share this orientation to problem-solving, while reinforcing societal power imbalances. Rather than labeling the comment as “racist” or inappropriate (a tactic that may likely alienate the male student), the facilitator could acknowledge the utility of emotion in conflict and encourage both students to give voice to the emotions they feel throughout, including nervousness, anger, gratitude, and optimism. The facilitator could then note that although emotional flooding can be detrimental to communication in some circumstances, the authentic and constructive expression of emotion in conflict can be vital to creating understanding with others (Jones & Brinkert, 2008). A facilitator gains credibility in the eyes of all participants by using approaches that recognize and address oppressive dynamics created as a result of social identity differences or implicit or explicit bias while simultaneously supporting all participants. Facilitators lose credit, particularly among marginalized populations, when they let such instances slide. Finally, facilitators must check their assumptions to account for the full range of human experiences. While we may understand systemic oppression and gendered expression patterns related to identifying as a White male or African American female, these two fictitious people embody multiple identities and experiences that make them unique. Assuming our White male enjoys privilege, for example, discounts that he may also identify in ways that marginalize him in many spaces or that he may not fully recognize his own relational power in community with others. He

facilitated dialogue  

185

may in fact feel genuinely discounted himself and be asking for respect for fear that he will experience harm.

Power in the Session Even though a facilitator may possess a keen understanding of the ways in which identity and culture can impact dialogue, they must constantly guard against power shifting in the session. Privilege and oppression rarely operate in static fashion, so it is possible for those who are marginalized because of their social identity outside a facilitated dialogue setting to generate some degree of privilege within it (e.g., by having a facilitator who shares their social identity[ies] or by demonstrating some relevant subject matter expertise). In fact, the facilitator must also understand how institutional culture can serve as an empowering or oppressive force in the dialogue. All do not enter the institution the same way and may attend the institution with the understanding that some traditions of the school are oppressive to one of their social identity groups. Alternatively, they may see the campus as confirmation of their power status. Regardless, power imbalance can disrupt the good-faith effort of parties and make them reluctant to engage in open, honest communication. If not careful, the facilitator can also be made the culprit as participants attempt to manipulate the facilitator’s multipartial approach in a quest to gain favor. This can be countered only if the facilitator displays an understanding of when to be an active participant and when to be invisible, placing responsibility on the participants to depend on each other more than the facilitator.

Safe Space Institutions of higher education are, by and large, seen as safe places to live and learn (Cheldelin & Lucas, 2004). But an idyllic perception of an institution can conceal a climate and a culture that harbor bias toward traditional hierarchy, values, and voices and leave many community members from oppressed backgrounds feeling as though they cannot wholly be woven into the fabric of their surroundings. This requires facilitators to create a safe space for all participants. A sense of safety can be established by selecting a neutral, or multipartial, site for the dialogue and by assuring participants in the introduction and ground rules (shared expectations) that things discussed in the session will be private, as confidential as possible, and used for the session without consequence. Safety is integral to the success of the session. The safer all feel in the dialogue space, including facilitated online spaces, the more likely their time together will be productive.

186   

pathways within the spectrum model

Although understanding these aspects of facilitated dialogue is helpful, it does not guarantee success in terms of fully resolving a conflict, particularly one with deep and lasting roots in the community. There is always the risk that a dialogue will create additional conflict or further damage the relationship between parties, requiring a fallback plan or safety net in which facilitators and parties can explore next steps that protect and value all parties moving forward in a second facilitated dialogue, mediation, or outside a structured process. However, if the facilitator remains multipartial throughout and creates an environment that permits all voices to be heard, the dialogue is likely to produce a positive net result for all stakeholders, while modeling valuable conflict management and resolution skills for future use.

Conclusion When traditional student conduct methods are inapplicable or likely to be ineffective, facilitated dialogue presents a viable alternative for managing various escalating campus conflicts. It can bring parties together when they are most divided and support campus cultures that value collaboration, learning, and positive peace. Without it, students may needlessly suffer the pangs of unresolved conflict and experience systems that normalize conflict as negative. Although undoubtedly important as a way of bringing closure to campus conflict, the more lasting impact of facilitated dialogue as an intentional tool within the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) may be its ability to transform students’ ways of communicating across difference and their perceptions of us-versus-them scenarios that tend to demonize the “other.” A student who is able to invite others to dialogue, and who is comfortable seeking the support of a facilitator to assist when needed, demonstrates developmental competencies likely to serve them as campus leaders and future alumni, as they have become courageous enough to engage, wise enough to select among pathways that promote peace, and skilled enough to communicate through conflict.

Summary Conflict is a natural and inevitable part of campus life. Most often, it disrupts the status quo in ways that promote growth, learning, and development while expanding the limits of what is known and what is possible. Other times, conflict impedes the institutional mission and causes harm to members of the campus community. This chapter examines how facilitated dialogue can be used to address various campus conflicts while

facilitated dialogue  

187

supporting the educational mission and fostering equitable and inclusive campus communities. As a conversation between two or among more individuals or groups in which a trained, multipartial facilitator helps parties overcome communicative barriers and engage in conversation regarding issues of mutual interest or concern, facilitated dialogue is a method of interacting whereby individuals and groups learn to communicate in, and through, conflict. As a process, it is flexible, relatively informal, and capable of expanding or contracting to fit groups of various sizes. This chapter discusses which types of campus conflict may be most suitable for facilitated dialogue, how to select a facilitator, basic facilitation skills and responsibilities, and six key aspects of facilitated dialogue to which a facilitator must be attuned to help advance the cause of social justice: multipartiality, diversity, intercultural awareness, identity awareness, power plays among participants, and the need to create a space that feels safe for everyone involved. Given appropriate training and practice, members of the campus community can serve as capable facilitators. Campuses need not hire additional personnel or invest significant financial resources to make facilitated dialogue processes available. They have to only recognize the need and take steps to make skilled, inclusive, and accessible facilitators available when necessary.

Questions for Reflection and Dialogue 1. In what ways could facilitated dialogue be used in your community? Can you think of instances when it would have been useful in the past or in the ongoing response to the disruption caused by the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic or demonstrations against systemic racism? 2. What resources exist on your campus or in your community that might help make facilitated dialogue processes a viable option for your campus in the future? 3. Do you envision any opposition to introducing facilitated dialogue as a campus resolution option? If so, how might those concerns be addressed? 4. What campus issues, populations (e.g., administration, faculty, staff, students), or combination of populations would most benefit from facilitated dialogue in your community at this time? What is preventing those conversations from happening? 5. What additional training or resources are available in your community or in your professional network(s) to further inform your thinking on the utility or practice of facilitated dialogue in addressing campus conflict both in person and online?

188   

pathways within the spectrum model

References Borba, A. (2019, February 21). Caught on camera: Man pitching conservative views assaulted at UC Berkeley. KPIX 5. https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/02/21/ caught-on-camera-conservative-assaulted-uc-berkeley/ Borisoff, D., & Victor, D. A. (1998). Conflict management: A communication skills approach (2nd ed). Allyn & Bacon. Carlson, C. (1999). Convening. In L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, & J. ThomasLarmer (Eds.), The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement (pp. 169–198). SAGE. Cheldelin, S. I., & Lucas, A. F. (2004). Academic administrator’s guide to conflict resolution. Jossey-Bass. Gadlin, H., & Sturm, S. P. (2007). Conflict resolution and systemic change. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 1(3), 1–63. Galtung, J. (1964). An Editorial. Journal of Peace Research, 1(1), 1–4. Grewal, B. (2003). Johan Galtung: Positive and negative peace [Unpublished manuscript]. Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. Heim, J. (2018, October 26). University of Virginia bans Richard Spencer and others from campus. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ education/university-of-virginia-bans-richard-spencer-and-others-from-campus/ 2018/10/26/b688c430-d92b-11e8-83a2-d1c3da28d6b6_story.html Hogan, C. (2002). Understanding facilitation: Theory and principles. Kogan Page. Jones, T. S., & Brinkert, R. (2008). Conflict coaching: Conflict management strategies and skills for the individual. SAGE. Landrum, M. (2003). Facilitated dialogue: A tool for early conflict intervention. http:// www.mediate.com/burklandrum/pg42.cfm McCain, D. V., & Tobey, D. D. (2007). Facilitation skills training. ASTP. McKearnan, S., & Fairman, D. (1999). Producing consensus. In L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer (Eds.), The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement (pp. 287–324). SAGE. Olshak, R. (2001). Mastering mediation: A guide for training mediators in a college and university setting. LRP. Rabie, M. (1994). Conflict resolution and ethnicity. Praeger. Schrage, J. M., & Thompson, M. C. (2008, June). Using a social justice model for conflict resolution to ensure access for all students. Paper presented at the Donald D. Gehring Academy for Student Conduct Administration, Salt Lake City, UT. Straus, D. A. (1999). Managing meetings to build consensus. In L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer (Eds.), The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement (pp. 287–324). SAGE. Zúñiga, X., Nagda, B.A., Chesler, M., & Cytron-Walker, A. (2007). Intergroup dialogue in higher education: Meaningful learning about social justice. Jossey-Bass.

8 M O D E L S O F M E D I AT I O N PRACTICE William Warters There will always be rocks in the road ahead of us. They will be stumbling blocks or stepping stones; it all depends on how you use them. – Friedrich Nietzsche

Introduction The term mediation refers, in the broadest sense, to conciliatory interventions by an acceptable third party who works with individuals or groups in conflict to facilitate the development of a shared and mutually acceptable solution to their problem(s). Problems may be relational, substantive, or (typically) some combination thereof. The actual practice of mediation in higher education (as elsewhere) varies tremendously in terms of the characteristics of the parties served and the mediation format and approach (Warters, 2000). Variations may include the degree of formality or informality accorded to the process, the openness of the process to party influence, the amount of time parties spend face to face, the number and type of person(s) chosen to intervene, and the relative emphasis placed on problem-solving and settlement or some form of transformation (individual, relational, or systemic). This chapter explores some of these variations in the context of higher education, reviews the predominant models of mediation practice, and provides a general road map for conflict handlers interested in understanding the mediation terrain.

189

190   

pathways within the spectrum model

Mediation in the Campus Context Mediation emerged on campuses in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which was a time when colleges and universities were experiencing a noticeable growth in legalism. As university enrollments and personnel expanded with the baby boom, campus administrators developed a seemingly ever-­increasing set of rules and regulations designed to manage the changing campus environment. While previously the courts had been reluctant to get involved in campus issues, during the 1970s they began hearing more campus-based disputes, and federal courts established a variety of new guidelines relating to internal grievance procedures. Also during this period, a larger proportion of university personnel joined unions and collectively bargained over contracts. These factors, along with growing student expectations of involvement in their educational institutions and more careful monitoring of the “fairness” of procedures, began to have a noticeable impact on policy-making. A due process explosion occurred, with many new campus policies being developed that provided detailed grievance and disciplinary procedures aimed at protecting individual rights, checking administrative discretion, and fending off possible lawsuits. These changes began to influence people’s experience of life on campus. In an article dating back to 1978, Ryor asked, “Who Killed Collegiality?” arguing that the era of collegiality was being replaced by one of liability. Other observers (Marske & Vago, 1980) described the environment of the late 1970s as alienated and driven by a complex web of legal guidelines. Signs of this increasing legalism included the growing availability of prepaid (i.e., student fee–funded) student legal services and new liability insurance policies provided by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) tailored specifically to the needs of faculty. University administrators moved to establish in-house legal counsel, as they were no longer able to function with the occasional use of the expertise of a lawyer sitting on their board of directors. The National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) experienced its greatest period of growth. Stetson University began hosting the popular annual conference on law and higher education in the late 1970s, and in 1987 the Association for Student Judicial Affairs (rebranded the Association for Student Conduct Administration in 2008) was formed as an offshoot of this gathering, designed to promote and support professionalism in the increasingly complex student conduct administration field. Clearly, due process and law were on the minds of many during this period, but so were dispute-handling alternatives.

models of mediation practice  

191

Campus Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) History Mediation, which emerged in the shadow of campus legalism, represented a relatively small voice in campus conduct management conversations in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Advocates of mediation were enthusiastic, however, and open to sharing their knowledge and resources. Campus experiments with mediation grew steadily, with a notable rise in activity in the wake of four annual national campus mediation conferences beginning in 1990. Most of the early programs primarily served students, but over time programs emerged that served staff, faculty, and community members as well. By the end of 1991, 35 campus mediation programs were visible in the United States and Canada, and growth continued with 165 programs logged as of 1998 (Warters, 1998). More recently, Katz and Kovack (2016) undertook a project with Nova Southeastern University graduate students to test how many higher education institutions were using process options found along the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008). During the 2013–2014 fall terms they identified 100 colleges and universities with visible ADR practices and found that most of these institutions offered mediation services including peer mediation (University of New Haven, Southern Methodist University, North Central College, Missouri State University); restorative justice ­ mediation/victim-offender mediation (University of Illinois, Missouri State University); social justice mediation (University of Michigan, University of Massachusetts, Oberlin College); workplace mediation (Syracuse University, Fresno Pacific University, University of Georgia, University of Minnesota, Eastern Mennonite University, Virginia Tech, University of Florida, Kennesaw State University, Dickinson College, Kent State University, many others); family mediation (University of North Dakota, Fresno Pacific University, University of Colorado, West Virginia University); court-annexed mediation (University of Illinois, Southern Methodist University, Fresno Pacific University, Columbia University); community mediation (Howard Community College, Fresno Pacific University, Columbia University, University of Alabama, University of Wisconsin, Loyola University of Los Angeles, Harvard University); and corporate, public, and international mediation (Harvard University) (Katz & Kovack, 2016). Katz and Kovack’s (2016) research also identified common issues mediated on campus: Campus disputes or matters involving students, faculty, and other staff members including student disciplinary matters Civil, family, and community disputes involving individuals, businesses, churches, and other organizations

192   

pathways within the spectrum model

Adult and juvenile crime and other such matters dealing with offending behavior that results in damage to property, minor injury to the person, or loss of income Matters arising from student conduct proceedings Public policy issues Corporate disputes Landlord and tenant disputes Government and group disputes EEOC employment discrimination disputes referred by administrative law judges Reentry mediation after incarceration

Goals of Mediation In the 1970s in the broader society, the emergence of community and courtaffiliated mediation initiatives was, at least in part, a response to popular dissatisfaction with the administration of justice (Levin & Wheeler, 1979). Policy aims for community and court-affiliated mediation programs included improving access to justice, reducing court waiting lists, and increasing consumer satisfaction with the legal system. On campus, however, the goals were not quite so tightly linked to improving grievance handling and perceptions of campus justice systems. Campus mediation efforts included a more pronounced focus on providing opportunities for student (and staff and faculty) development and learning (Rodgers, 1983), promoting service to the community, and tools for preventing escalated conflict. Staff and administrators were interested in finding ways to address conflict more effectively and proactively but particularly in ways that helped sustain rather than diminish the feeling of community on campus. Because of its flexibility as a conflict management approach and as a significant learning opportunity, mediation found a place for itself on college campuses.

Types of Mediators As mediators become more sophisticated, and as the number of mediators and range of settings where they work increases, so has the debate about who should mediate and how and what styles are most appropriate. Mediators can play many different roles in relation to the parties. For instance, Moore (1996) identified social network, independent, and authoritative mediator types. A social network mediator is part of an ongoing and shared social network with parties, such as a friend, family member, colleague, elder, or

models of mediation practice  

193

religious leader. They are chosen because they have earned the trust of the parties. This kind of mediator is often sought in more collectivist cultures where community relationships remain important. The independent mediator, which is most common in the North American context, is perceived to have no vested interest in the conflict and is not supposed to be connected to the parties in any way. They are expected to be impartial and objective, standing outside the dispute, and have no decision-making power in the case and no power to enforce agreements that might be reached. This is quite unlike the authoritative mediator who has ties to the parties, has a vested interest in what happens, and often has the power to enforce agreements because of the mediator’s higher rank in some authority structure of relevance to the parties. This type of mediator might be a party’s supervisor or employer, for instance, who has decided that having the parties solve a conflict is likely to be better than an imposed solution. Another interesting distinction has to do with the degree to which mediators involve themselves with social norms related to the conflict context. Waldman (1997) has identified three broad types: norm-generating, normeducating, and norm-advocating mediators. The norm-generating types, probably the most common, are focused on maintaining the autonomy of parties, letting them develop their own norms based on their relationship and their context (e.g., in a community mediation between neighbors). The norm-educating mediators use the mediation process to help educate parties to the relevant social or legal norms in their community (e.g., divorce cases or restorative conference circles), either during the sessions or between them through consultation with external experts, but then leave it up to the parties to decide how they might be applied. Norm-advocating mediators (e.g., in environmental or public policy mediations) work to not only educate parties about relevant social and legal norms but also advocate for their inclusion in agreements. In these cases, the mediators may even withdraw from a case if it seems as if the parties were going to agree to something that is outside the norms deemed acceptable to the mediator. There is a lot of potential overlap between these types, but they point out the wide variety of roles mediators may play in conflict situations.

Mediator Styles Observers and scholars of mediation have often characterized individual mediators as having a style of practice that is thought to be relatively consistent across cases. For example, Silbey and Merry (1986) identify bargaining and therapeutic mediator styles, Kolb (1983) notes dealmakers

194 pathways within the spectrum model    versus orchestrators, and Riskin (1994) designates evaluative versus facilitative styles. Rather than representing dichotomous choices, these designations are better understood as the endpoints on a continuum that stretches between a problem-solving, settlement-oriented mediator approach (often more directive) and a more relationship-oriented approach (often less directive). Kressel and his colleagues (1994) have noted that a mediator’s style is typically something they perform “without fully recognizing the underlying coherence or ‘logic’ behind their style” (p. 72). The distinct models of mediation we will explore in the next section provide frameworks for practice that can be quite useful in guiding mediator behavior in a more conscious way. Readers are advised to avoid becoming drawn into the (at times) polemical debate on models and styles. Preferred approaches are clearly influenced by the norms and conditions found in each context, as well as the educational background, training, and level of experience of a mediator. These differences in context influence what we think works and why, and they vary considerably even within a given campus environment. Consider, for instance, the different factors and process choices a mediator may face addressing a stalled labor contract negotiation, a conflict between a supervisor and an employee over alleged sexual harassment, a tenure and promotion conflict, a roommate conflict over study habits, and a fight between two key members of the campus baseball team. Each context brings certain norms and behavioral expectations (labor relations, human resources, faculty governance, residence life, student activities, athletics, etc.) that can influence our choices regarding model and preferred style. Related, mediators must tend to situational applications of pressure in mediation, no matter the model. As third parties, mediators do not have a direct stake in the outcome and are to remain objective and impartial while empowering parties to constructively address issues. Using pressure, power, and coercion as a mediator can have important process and outcome consequences. Tim Hedeen (2005) explores pressure (drawing from Carnevale et al., 1989) to invite practitioners to be honest about their comfort across measures of whether a certain amount of low to moderate pressure or coercion is ever constructive to the process in certain situations. For instance, is it ever appropriate for a mediator to suggest that a party compromise, or explain that the mediation will not conclude until one or both parties make some progress on an issue? What if the mediator threatens to declare impasse if an offer is unrealistic or implies that a due process decision maker will be displeased if parties do not reach agreement? Even controlling the pace and time frame of mediation can have real consequences on the pressure parties may feel to move forward.

models of mediation practice  

195

Despite our aspiration as mediators to remain neutral and leave our preferences, biases, and identities out of the process, we are only human. Pressure, power, and coercion are often leveraged in subtle and not so subtle ways. A capable, trustworthy mediator will notice and account for these personal and situational power dynamics, both as displayed by parties and in the role of mediator throughout the process.

Models of Mediation Program administrators can now choose (either consciously or by default based on their choice of trainers) among a growing variety of relatively distinct mediation models based on different underlying philosophies and preferred formats. We will examine problem-solving, transformative, narrative, social justice, and insight models of face-to-face mediation in some detail. Additional models, including hybrid and online versions, continue to surface as practitioners in this young field gather data and advance new ways of promoting mediation as both an accessible process option and set of transferable conflict resolution skills. Reviewing these foundational models provides program developers with more information as they consider their own goals and the kind of work they hope to accomplish. For example, if a mediation program is being designed to serve the broader community as well as the campus and it welcomes group and town-gown conflicts, the program must be capable of managing multisided and often multiparty conflicts. Often the disputants in these cases have ongoing relationships; therefore, it would be important for the training to value and recognize that conflict is often set in a context of deep personal emotion that may be only ambiguously related to the immediate issues. However, if a program (say, a student clinical training program) is linked to the business school or the Department of Labor Relations, addressing primarily contract-related disputes, the philosophy of the mediators might need to be informed by collective bargaining characteristics, such as bipolarity and the need to reach a written settlement agreement, thus requiring a training model compatible with this approach. Perhaps the program is designed to focus solely on students, building on the belief that mediation is a vehicle for personal development with an emphasis on future behavior. This too would affect the emphasis of training and choice of model. In residence, mediation is often looked to as a training and application model for peer and professional hall staff looking to engage and support students as they work to resolve their own community conflicts. Similarly,

196 pathways within the spectrum model    mediation processes and skills are often looked to when student organizations experience internal conflict among leaders and members, or when conflicts between organizations surface. Still another opportunity for mediation has emerged as shifting Title IX guidance related to gender equity and managing student sexual misconduct and harassment on campus may open the door for an expansion of alternative or companion resolution processes beyond formal adjudication. In these cases, voluntary restorative victim-offender mediation that bridges traditional models with restorative principles might be employed that requires tailored training and a unique trauma-informed approach to avoid re-victimization while seeking to balance power in the relationship between parties.

Problem-Solving Mediation Problem-solving mediation, sometimes referred to as interest-based mediation, has been the default model that most mediators are exposed to in their initial training. It is grounded in the principles espoused in the widely read book Getting to Yes: How To Negotiate Agreement Without Giving In (Fisher & Ury, 1981) and is well developed in Christopher Moore’s book, The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict (1996). Mediators come to understand that conflicted parties often have positions that may appear inflexible, but with skillful questioning mediators can help uncover underlying interests that are driving them. Once interests are identified, solutions that let both parties get at least some of what they want can be devised. The goal is to help parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. In an interest-based mediation model, based as it is on the norms of an individualist culture, mediators are trained to separate the people from the problem and to keep the focus on the problem itself, encouraging parties to explore data and experiences related to the problem at hand. The approach to the problem is pragmatic, and settlement through bargaining and compromise is a primary goal. The result is that when mediators probe for issues underlying the conflict, they tend to focus on information related to the problem itself rather than on exploring broader issues related to the parties’ identities and relationships.

Evaluative and Facilitative Problem-Solving Styles Within the broader problem-solving model, a couple of stylistic subtypes, evaluative and facilitative, have been the subject of much scrutiny and

models of mediation practice  

197

discussion based on a mediator style grid developed by law professor Len Riskin (1994, 1996). Riskin (2003) has since revised his model to use the terms directive and elicitive, but the earlier grid is more well known and quite widely used. Evaluative mediators are characterized as enacting a more distributive version of the problem-solving approach that assumes that a primary obstacle to settlement is often a party’s stubbornness and/or unrealistic assessment of the strength of their case under a given set of rules or laws. The mediator sees his or her job as providing parties with a more balanced and realistic positional assessment. Evaluative mediators are characterized as more prone to actively narrowing topics for discussion to legal or contract-related issues, pushing hard for settlement, giving parties their opinion of what seems fair, and working to narrow the “settlement range” in hopes that parties will agree. This style may be most prominent in contexts where parties are contending a single issue such as money (think small claims court, payment disputes, or civil court cases), and where mediators have prior experience exercising considerable decision-making authority (think former judges or business executives). Facilitative mediators, on the other hand, are portrayed as being much less controlling of the process, leaving the choice of topics and evaluation of options clearly in the hands of the parties. Mediators focus on managing the communication process, helping parties identify and express their underlying interests and needs, assuming this will reveal areas of overlapping interests that can be used in the crafting of an agreement, often through trade-offs or compromises. It is generally assumed that the parties, when faced with a solution that allows both to get some of what they want, will choose it over more selfish options. The importance of mediator neutrality and impartiality is emphasized as a key to success. This style preference is more common in contexts involving parties with ongoing relationships and cases with multiple tangible and intangible issues (e.g., divorce or interorganizational conflicts). The facilitative problem-solving style of mediation is probably the normative model offered by most training programs for new mediators.

Transformative Mediation In contrast to the problem-solving model, transformative mediators are taught to focus on the relationships of parties involved. The model known as transformative mediation is based on the book The Promise of Mediation:

198 pathways within the spectrum model    The Transformative Approach to Conflict by Robert Baruch Bush and Joseph Folger (1994, 2005). The approach has its roots in the moral development theories of social psychologist Carol Gilligan (1982), and its creators see conflict mediation as an opportunity for the moral growth and development of the participants. The transformative approach does not seek as its goal the resolution of the immediate problem but rather seeks the empowerment and mutual recognition of the parties involved. Empowerment, according to Baruch Bush and Folger (1994, 2005), means enabling the parties to clarify and define their own issues and to seek solutions on their own, increasing their capacity for individual decisionmaking. Recognition means enabling parties to see and understand the other person’s point of view—to understand how they have defined the problem and perhaps why they seek the solution that they do. Empowerment and recognition processes may pave the way for a mutually agreeable settlement, but that is only a secondary effect. Baruch Bush and Folger (1994, 2005) have defined successful mediation as occurring when parties in the mediation process have been made aware of the opportunities presented during the mediation for empowerment and recognition; helped to clarify goals, options, and resources, and then to make informed, deliberate, and free choices regarding how to proceed at every decision point; helped to give recognition to the other wherever it was their decision to do so. The primary goal of transformative mediation is enabling parties to approach their current problem, as well as later problems, with a stronger, more open view. The model seeks to avoid the problem of mediator directiveness believed to occur too often in problem-solving mediation, instead putting responsibility for all outcomes squarely on the disputants. At the college and university level, a National Consortium of University Conflict Transformation program was formed to include special initiatives at James Madison University, Hofstra University School of Law, University of North Dakota, and Temple University. Transformative mediation is also the model of choice in the U.S. Postal Service’s REDRESS mediation program where its effectiveness has been well researched. The best current source of information on the transformative mediation model is the Dayton, Ohio-based Institute for the Study of Conflict Transformation.

models of mediation practice  

199

Narrative Mediation Like transformative mediation, narrative mediation was developed as an alternative to the problem-solving model. Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to Conflict Resolution by John Winslade and Gerald Monk (2000) lays out the model in some detail. The approach comes from the tradition of narrative family therapy developed by Michael White and David Epston (1990) in the mid-1980s. It is based on the premise that we live our lives according to the stories (narratives) that we and others tell about ourselves. Drawing on a postmodern understanding of objectivity, it privileges stories and the meanings within stories over facts and causes. Postmodernism recognizes that one’s point of view can never be completely objective and that an account of an event is intrinsically linked to one’s point of view. One’s point of view, by extension, comes directly out of one’s sociocultural context. Conflict occurs through the clash of storied accounts of the people in disagreement. For the narrative mediator, it is the conflict story that is viewed as the problem rather than the person or parties. Mediators are interested in how the conflict story affects an individual’s life more than whether or not the story is factual. The conflict stands between the people rather than something that is inside themselves. In the narrative mediation process, conflict parties pass through three broad and often nonlinear phases: engagement, deconstructing the conflict-saturated story, and constructing an alternative story. Engaging the parties in the process involves creation of an appropriate context for the conversation, whereas the deconstructing process involves “undermin[ing] the certainties on which the conflict feeds and invites the participants to view the plot of the dispute from a different vantage point” (Winslade & Monk, 2000, p. 72). The construction of an alternate narrative is the mediator’s prime focus. Construction of the alternative account begins with the belief that a story of cooperation probably already exists and only needs to be uncovered through listening for problems and opportunities or exceptions. Narrative mediators rely heavily on a technique known as externalization. The mediator speaks about the conflict as if it were an external object or third party that has a life of its own. For example, the mediator would not ask questions exploring how Ryan and/or Shenika were the cause of the conflict, but rather about how the conflict has caused difficulties between them. The conflict may be named, and its history and point of origin traced. The conflict may be vilified and labeled as interfering, tricky, or expensive, and the parties are encouraged to search for ways to escape from the “tyranny” of the problem.

200   

pathways within the spectrum model

In their 2008 book on practicing narrative mediation, Winslade and Monk provide nine hallmarks that summarize the model’s approach: 1. Assume that people live their lives through stories. 2. Avoid essentialist assumptions. 3. Engage in double listening. 4. Build an externalizing conversation. 5. View the problem story as a restraint. 6. Listen for discursive positioning. 7. Identify openings to an alternative story. 8. Re-author the relationship story. 9. Document progress. (p. 3) Using a variety of questioning techniques the mediator generally seeks to develop a better understanding of the narratives behind the conflict and helps parties jointly create a new alternative narrative rooted in cooperation and mutual respect.

Social Justice Mediation The social justice model of mediation, a variant of the narrative model, pays special attention to the prevention of narrative domination (one story overshadowing or controlling others) and the replication of racial privileging or oppressive dynamics. The model was developed by Leah Wing and colleagues (see Wing & Rifkin, 2001; Wing 2002) from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and is being used for training and/or resolution services on a growing number of campuses today, including the University of Michigan, Oberlin College, the University of Vermont, and the University of Missouri System. Research on mediation discourse finds that a challenge facing mediators is helping disputants tell their stories fully and in a way that does not involve just reacting to the accusations of the first or most recent speaker (Cobb & Rifkin, 1991). A related challenge for mediators is developing an understanding of how social structures and inequalities limit the kinds of life narratives and ways of framing situations that are possible for members of one group or another and how the mediator’s own biases may be playing a part in the process. Social justice mediation, and narrative mediation more broadly, involves recognizing that one cannot be completely neutral and requires practitioners to take a stand on issues stemming from the dominant societal discourses that create and recreate systems of oppression. Mediators trained in the

models of mediation practice  

201

social justice model spend additional time prior to their mediation skills training learning about oppression theory and core social justice and racial identity development concepts. Within the mediation training, two basic concepts that have traditionally been taught are called into question: neutrality, which means that mediators don’t take sides, that they’re impartial and equally distant from both parties; and symmetry, which is connected to the concept of fairness—giving each person the same amount of time to speak, for example. In the social justice model, rather than training mediators to be impartial, mediators learn to be multipartial, able to assist both participants in telling their stories. This can result in the mediation becoming asymmetrical—for example, because of differing communication styles, some people need more time to express themselves. The social justice model also often involves a greater amount of time spent in separate sessions, in a shuttle mediation style, to prevent parties from having to defend their worldviews and react to the others rather than telling their own story fully. Another key for this approach is the availability of a multicultural pool of trained mediators who can create a comfortable and engaging environment for disputants with different experiences and cultural backgrounds. Since around 2002 Wing and her colleagues at the Social Justice Mediation Institute have been offering annual training institutes to help support the spread of the approach.

Insight Mediation The insight mediation model (Melchin & Picard, 2008; Picard, 2016; Picard & Melchin, 2007) is among the newest of those described here. It draws on the work of Canadian philosopher Bernard Lonergan (1970) and his theory of insight. The mediation model was developed by a pair of faculty colleagues from Ottawa, Canada, namely Cheryl Picard (Carleton University) and Kenneth Melchin (Saint Paul University). Mediators who practice this approach are trained to look for direct insights (moments of clarity, the aha!) and inverse insights (realizations that certain assumptions or lines of inquiry are incorrect) into what the conflict means to each party. Primary attention is given to a few core concepts—the centrality of learning (and who is doing it) in conflict, emotions and their connection to a party’s values, and the importance of identifying a party’s underlying cares and concerns (their perceived threats). Transformative and narrative model proponents generally maintain that probing for information about the problem just tends to keep parties locked

202 pathways within the spectrum model    into a conflict and that to achieve resolution a shift must be made away from the problem. In contrast, Picard and Melchin find that by focusing on the problem and exploring the parties’ concerns about the conflict, they can break through to a deeper understanding of relational issues of the problem. Insight mediators work under the assumption that conflicts are maintained by feelings of threat and work to help parties use the conflict to examine and understand their underlying values and perceived threats to these. Feelings of threat are linked to parties’ past experiences, present behaviors, and expectations about the future. Insight mediators use a process of linking, delinking, and verifying to clarify the source of feelings and to clear up misconceptions. In comparison to the transformative model, focused as it is on the interactions between parties (looking for opportunities to foster empowerment and recognition), and the narrative model where the mediator works to coconstruct a new non-conflict story (spending little time probing the problem story), the insight model takes parties through an in-depth exploration of the problem rather than around it. While the insight model shares similarities with the problem-solving model, the difference, according to Picard and Melchin (2007), is that the insight model is relationship centered rather than problem centered and assumes that parties must not only explore the problem but also move through and beyond it to gain understanding. Apropos of educational ­institutions, insight mediation is all about learning by the parties (as opposed to the curious mediator, judge, or arbiter). This includes learning about the deeper cares and concerns of others, learning about values and how they are at work in conflict, and learning about strategies for pursuing values without threatening the values of others. The developers view this model as particularly well suited to conflicts where there is an ongoing relationship, which is why it resonates on diverse college campuses where students often live, study, and participate in ongoing cocurricular activities. The model is currently taught and in use at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, and at the Insight Conflict Resolution Program at George Mason University. In 2017 and 2018 two volumes of the online journal Revista de Mediación were devoted to the insight model. Articles are available in both English and Spanish. Since her retirement from Carleton University in 2013, Picard has continued to develop and promote the insight model via the insight approach website (http://insightapproach.ca).

models of mediation practice  

203

Conclusion Provision of mediation training on campus continues to be one of the most common gateways for expanding process options beyond adjudication and into other pathways found along the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008). This is followed closely by restorative justice training, which continues to gain in popularity. Mediation came into favor on college and university campuses over the last four-plus decades as student conduct administrators and residential living staff searched for additional tools and processes to help students across identities and experiences better manage and resolve conflicts that might prompt or accompany traditional code violation allegations (e.g., roommate quarrels that become disruptive conduct allegations or alcohol and other substance abuse incidents that negatively impact the culture and climate of a community). And while it is not uncommon today to find formal and informal mediation options as part of conduct- and housing-related services, the integration of this additional pathway has been uneven for reasons including (a) lack of funds and administrative support, (b) lack of sustainable capacity-building based on training hour needs and programmatic attrition by students and staff who leave due to graduation or promotion, (c) challenges protecting the voluntary nature of the process as well as the real and perceived neutrality and confidentiality of facilitators who wear multiple “hats,” and (d) a culture of higher education that often defaults to applications of hierarchical authority, risk management, and due process goals over collaboration, individual empowerment, and shared problem-solving when conflicts escalate. Conflict coaching, as reviewed by Giacomini and Porter in chapter 6, first evolved as its own campus resolution pathway in the United States at Temple University (Pennsylvania). Coaching provided the campus with an opportunity to meet one on one with students experiencing conflict in instances where the other party (or parties) was not willing to attend mediation. Beyond the academy, mediation is a familiar option in a multidoor approach to criminal and civil justice, although legal colleagues often apply more of a directive, results-oriented negotiation approach over the more relational problem-solving, transformation, social justice, or insight models often favored in education. Mediation is also institutionalized as a federally required and funded voluntary process option in every state across the United States to help resolve special education disputes between families and educational administrators. Special education mediation often mitigates the need for a more formal due process hearing akin to formal campus adjudication processes. Transformative mediation is the process of choice to de-escalate conflicts and transform relationships in the U.S.

204 pathways within the spectrum model    Postal Service. In this model, agreements can be reached but they are not the process goal. Mediation across communities as diverse as higher education, special education, and the postal service is a proven way to empower people to manage and resolve their own conflicts. It further teaches communication, collaboration, and shared problem-solving skills that often outlive the current conflict, as participants may apply what they have learned through a mediated session when future conflicts arise. Bigger than this, communities that integrate and systemically endorse mediation can realize notable constructive changes in climate and culture. Investing in mediation signals a priority commitment to trust building over authority, as discussed within the restorative justice context outlined in chapter 11 by Giacomini, Karp, Dixon, and Glassman. Systems that offer less formal, situation-based conflict resolution practices over adjudication-only models are often more aligned with companion values found within the inclusive excellence framework; they invest differently in authentic applications of learning, diversity, inclusion, access, equity, and community development. In this way the very process of creating and marketing mediation services, rebranding student conduct practice, and training new mediators gets right to the heart of the educational mission. As mediation researcher Kenneth Kressel (2006) aptly notes, “The ability to effectively manage conflict may well be considered one of the basic characteristics of the truly educated person. Training in mediation is an important subset of this ability” (p. 750). Program developers working on college campuses are in a great position to teach and reinforce these basic skills of conflict resolution and to offer powerful learning opportunities in some of the higher-order abilities that these models of mediation bring into view. It is well worth the attention and dedication it requires.

Summary Chapter 8 features an updated history of mediation as it relates to higher education, together with an overview of leading and emerging models and mediator styles in use today. Several foundational resources are shared by Warters as a pioneer practitioner, educator, and researcher who helped shape and study mediation applications across fields. Mediation as found at the midpoint of the Schrage and Thompson (2008) spectrum model used to be considered an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) pathway suggesting a secondary pecking order to that of more formal adjudicated options. Over the years, this term has fallen out of favor as those who embrace mediation recognize its merits not as an alternative, but as often the most appropriate

models of mediation practice  

205

means of empowering parties in conflict to shape their own management and resolution steps forward. Mediation training continues to be the first step of choice as a capacity-building prerequisite into other pathways along the spectrum model, including conflict coaching and restorative victim-offender conferences. Mediation and mediation skills are also widely taught as multiday certificate and credit-bearing courses and as in-person and online conflict management modules for professional and student staff. The best sustainable outcomes are realized when training is conducted by facilitators not only expert in the field of conflict management but also attuned to the inclusive educational mission of higher education. A working knowledge of trending campus conflicts, together with legal and risk-management obligations, will further enhance an investment in training, with overall learning outcomes both transferable to existing adjudication models and useful as catalysts for systemic changes in student conduct practice.

Questions for Reflection and Dialogue 1. Of the mediation models and styles outlined in this chapter, which resonates with you as the most in keeping with campus-based needs and interests. Why? 2. How might implementing or expanding existing informal and formal mediation services in a campus community enhance missions of education and inclusion? 3. What campus-based, local, and organizational partnerships exist when looking to train mediators and implement a formal mediation pathway to expand existing adjudication-only models? 4. Process a fictitious or redacted conflict on campus in which a student’s alleged behavior resulted in a finding of responsibility and prompted traditional sanctions ranging from probation to expulsion. If one is not readily available, a case study borrowed from another chapter may be of use. How might mediation have been constructive and useful at any point in the process between initial report and final institutional action? 5. Draft a presentation or outline a white paper for your leadership and community that advocates for the introduction of mediation in your community and identifies first steps. 6. Review your state’s Department of Education website and locate information about how your state operationalizes special education dispute resolution or visit CADRE (www.cadreworks.org) to view exemplar state profiles. What would it take for higher education to develop similar integrated practices?

206   

pathways within the spectrum model

7. Given that mediation is widely in use with successful systemic examples found in special education and the U.S. Postal Service REDRESS program, what barriers and opportunities exist that are unique to higher education? 8. When it comes to modulating power, pressure, and coercion as a mediator, consider the following: a. As a mediator, what resource power might you enjoy that participants may not share and how might this show up as power, pressure, or coercion in the process? What might you do to mitigate these dynamics to foster a climate of inclusion and equity? b. How does your selection of physical position at the table or in a selected room facilitate power, pressure, or coercion in the process? How do these dynamics change if practicing remotely? What might noticing and accounting for the use of physical space through the lens of inclusive conflict excellence look like? c. What might your professional title and credentials connote to participants in context to power, pressure, and coercion? What can be done individually and systemically to help build and sustain trust between the mediator and parties in the dispute? d. How might visible identities around the table and in your role as mediator impact dynamics of power, pressure, and coercion and how can differences be constructively leveraged? e. What impact does it have on power, pressure, and coercion in the role of mediator when we prioritize agreement as a mediation outcome versus the goal of relationship building? What other priority outcomes might be identified to help balance these dynamics?

References Baruch Bush, R. A., & Folger, J. (1994). The promise of mediation: Responding to conflict through empowerment and recognition. Jossey-Bass. Baruch Bush, R. A., & Folger, J. P. (2005). The promise of mediation: The transformative approach to conflict (rev. ed.). Jossey-Bass. Carnevale, P. J. D., Lim, R. G., & McLaughlin, M. E. (1989). Contingent mediator behavior and its effectiveness. In K. Kressel & D. G. Pruitt (Eds.), Mediation research (pp. 213–240). Jossey-Bass. Cobb, S., & Rifkin J. (1991). Practice and paradox: Deconstructing neutrality in mediation. Law and Social Inquiry, 16(1), 35–62. Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin.

models of mediation practice  

207

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press. Hedeen, T. (2005). Coercion and self-determination in court-connected Mediation: All mediations are voluntary, but some mediations are more voluntary than ­others. Justice System Journal, 26(3), 273–291. Katz, N. & Kovack, L. (2016). Higher education’s current state of alternative dispute resolution services for students. Journal of Conflict Management, 4(1), 5–37. Kolb, D. M. (1983). The mediators. MIT Press. Kressel, K. (2006). Mediation revisited. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 726– 756). Jossey-Bass. Kressel, K., Frontera, E. A., Forlenza, S., Butler, F., and Fish, L. (1994). The ­settlement-orientation vs. the problem-solving style in custody mediation. Journal of Social Issues, 50(1), 67–84. Levin, A. L., & Wheeler, R. R. (Eds.). (1979). Perspectives on justice in the future: Proceedings of the National Conference on the Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction With the Administration of Justice. West. Lonergan, B. J. F. (1970). Insight: A study of human understanding. Philosophical Library. Marske, C. E., & Vago, S. (1980). Law and dispute processing in the academic community. Judicature, 64(4), 165–175. Melchin, K. R., & Picard, C. A. (2008). Transforming conflict through insight. University of Toronto Press. Moore, C. (1996). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Picard, C. A. (2016). Practising insight mediation. University of Toronto Press. Picard, C. A., & Melchin, K. R. (2007). Insight mediation: A learning-centered mediation model. Negotiation Journal, 23(1), 35–53. Riskin, L. L. (1994). Mediator orientations, strategies and techniques. Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, 12(9), 111–114. Riskin, L. L. (1996). Understanding mediators’ orientations, strategies, and techniques: A grid for the perplexed. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 7, 1. Riskin, L. L. (2003). Decision making in mediation: The new old grid and the new new grid system. Notre Dame Law Review, 79(1), 1. Rodgers, R. F. (1983). Using theory in practice. In T. K. Miller, R. B. Winston, & W. R. Mendenhall, (Eds.), Administration and leadership in student affairs (pp. 111–144). Accelerated Development. Ryor, A. (1978, June–July). Who killed collegiality? Change, 10(6) 11–12. Silbey, S. S., & Merry, S. E. (1986). Mediator settlement strategies. Law & Policy, 8(1), 7–32. Schrage, J. M., & Thompson, M. C. (2008, June). Using a social justice model for conflict resolution to ensure access for all students. Paper presented at the Donald D. Gehring Academy for Student Conduct Administration, Salt Lake City, UT. Waldman, E. A. (1997). Identifying the role of social norms in mediation: A multiple model approach. Hastings Law Journal, 48(4), 703–769.

208   

pathways within the spectrum model

Warters, W. (1998). The history of campus mediation systems: Research and practice. Paper presented at the meeting on Reflective Practice in Institutionalizing Conflict Resolution in Higher Education, Atlanta, GA. Warters, W. C. (2000). Mediation in the campus community: Designing and managing effective programs. Jossey-Bass. White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. Norton. Wing, A. L. (2002). Social justice and mediation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Wing, L., & Rifkin, J. (2001). Racial identity development and the mediation of conflicts. In C. Wijeyesinghe & B. W. Jackson (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development: A theoretical and practical anthology (pp. 182–208). New York University Press. Winslade, J., & Monk, G. (2000). Narrative mediation: A new approach to conflict resolution. Jossey-Bass. Winslade, J., & Monk, G. (2008). Practicing narrative mediation: Loosening the grip of conflict. Jossey-Bass.

9 R E S T O R AT I V E J U S T I C E F RO M T H E O RY TO PRACTICE Andrea Goldblum The circle meetings are full of teachable moments. Overall, they give offenders a chance to rethink where they are headed. This could turn a life around. —Silver Gate Group (2002)

Introduction Colleges and universities are changing, as are the student populations attending and the society in which they reside. Students may run afoul of policies in ways that were inconceivable just a few years ago. For example, with the proliferation of technological communication such as text messages, email, and viral social networks—as many as a half million tweets and Instagram photos every minute (Brown, 2018)—has come a generation that is said to have weaker interpersonal ties and may be less likely to work things out face to face. Research shows that they are more likely to use text messages or engage in verbal warfare in online communications (Keller, 2013). The campus climate is a critical component for student success, as it has the potential to nurture and integrate individuals as valued members of the educational community and ensure they have equitable opportunities for learning. For many students, the environment is heavily influenced by the quality of relationships with faculty, staff, and other students and by the sense of community or connection. It is, however, difficult to feel connected when conflict or victimization and lack of inclusion are not addressed appropriately (Reistenberg, 2003). Thus, colleges are also places for social guidance, where conflict management and discipline become important aspects of the educational experience. Even as the COVID-19 pandemic continues, the social development aspect of campus life is among the most pressing reasons given for returning students to face-to-face and hybrid learning experiences. 209

210   

pathways within the spectrum model

Most behavioral interventions by college personnel are intended to be educational. But traditional disciplinary processes often have punitive or retributive components, such as suspension, expulsion, exclusion or banning, and loss of privileges. A punitive orientation may lead to increased feelings of resentment and alienation for a student identified as an offender1 rather than encouraging them to be thoughtful or regretful about their behavior and its impact. Such an orientation may breed a feeling in the offender of unfairness, martyrdom, or being the victim in the situation, and thus inhibit learning when that becomes the focus, rather than the student’s behavior and its impact. However, insufficient attention to the needs of victims, survivors, or community members impacted by an offender’s behavior may create hostile environments. This may lead to withdrawals from school, lawsuits, and other negative consequences for individuals and the institution. Traditional practices of campus justice may not meet the challenges and desired outcomes for offending students. There are certainly situations in which students must be removed from school for their own safety and the safety of others. But beyond safety considerations, suspension and expulsion may have little educational value except as a punitive lesson and indirect cautionary tale to others considering similar conduct. An educational opportunity to provide guidance and intervention may be lost. The very students who are most in need of social support and education may be denied these learning opportunities. Most importantly, higher education is in the business of student development and education. Students restricted or removed from their communities continue to have needs that affect the community as well as themselves. Their behavior may not stop simply by virtue of being sanctioned or separated from an institution. They may remain in the community or move on to other institutions and continue acting out there. They may come back to their original institution once a suspension is complete and not have any additional support to help them be any more successful than they were before they were suspended. There is another less adversarial option of redress found in restorative justice (RJ). Broadly, RJ as a theory and practice promotes individual responsibility and victim and community restoration, sometimes immediately and sometimes long after an incident has had a negative impact. When successful, RJ helps to promote and model pro-social behavior for the offender, while repairing the harm that the offender’s behavior caused to the victim and impacted community members. It can also help victims to heal by increasing their sense of control and autonomy (Harper et al., 2017). This chapter, along with chapter 13, considers the use of restorative principles not just as a set of foundational values but as a specific pathway option in managing conflict and conduct on campus.

restorative justice from theory to practice  

211

The Need for RJ Since the original publication of this chapter, society in the United States has changed. Never has this been more true than in the wake of the COVID19 pandemic and related social unrest. In addition to the benefits of electronic communications, we have seen the development of more superficial friendships, trolling, cyberbullying, and electronic stalking (Gaitho, 2018). Increasing social and political dichotomization, as evidenced by acts of intolerance, including a sharp rise in hate crimes, has created a deep sense of the “haves and have nots” between those with power and privilege and those without. The “other,” including but not limited to undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers, Muslims and Jews, feminists and liberals, conservatives, or members of the LGBTQIA community, are often demonized. School, workplace, church, and mall shootings have become common enough to desensitize the public to news of yet another incident. In the wake of a mass shooting, former senior FBI official Katherine Schweit opined, “We have absolutely become numb to these kinds of shootings, and I think that will continue” (Ducharme, 2018). The #MeToo and Time’s Up movements have given rise to the public reporting of sometimes decades-old sexual misconduct and abuse and the subsequent downfall of several powerful men. On university and college campuses, regulatory dominance has dramatically shifted Title IX guidance and undermined the educational mission of student conduct. There has been increased litigation by both complainants and respondents, resulting in conflicting case law in the federal judicial circuits. The result has seen a swing back to proceduralism and focus on due process. Risk management and risk of litigation seem to be the primary concerns in sexual harassment and misconduct cases, as opposed to the needs and education of the parties involved.

The Case for RJ RJ programs, and hybrids also known as restorative discipline, help create situations with positive developmental, environmental, and interpersonal outcomes. RJ can help create a climate that guards an institution and its members from antisocial, self-destructive, violent, and even criminal behavior. According to Karp and Allena (2004), RJ “encourages dialogue among victims and offenders to construct plans of action that hold offenders accountable and meet victims’ needs,” and restorative processes help create “consensus around behavioral standards, but it is balanced with a concern for reintegration—which is defined by an offender’s ability to regain trust through demonstrated good citizenship” (p. 7, emphasis added). Both

212 pathways within the spectrum model    David Karp and I have pioneered sustained RJ practices in higher education over several decades. While formal campus applications remain uneven, RJ inquiry, training, and hybrid practice models integrated with other conductrelated practices (including mindfulness and meditation) are becoming more popular across K–12 and higher education than ever before. In Box 9.1, I share my personal experience as an early and ongoing advocate for RJ practices and principles in higher education. BOX 9.1.

Brief History of RJ in Higher Education

RJ is a set of principles and practices used in criminal justice systems around the world since the mid-1970s as a method of reforming the way societies deal with crime and other violations. RJ is based on tribal or indigenous practices for peacemaking and responding to wrongdoing, particularly practices of the Navajo Nation in the American Southwest, the Māori people of New Zealand, and the Inuit and native peoples of the northern Pacific coast of North America. In the United States, RJ has been as an alternative to traditional criminal justice systems for juveniles, better meeting their developmental and rehabilitative needs, and working to reduce recidivism. I enjoyed codeveloping the first university RJ program in the late 1990s at the University of Colorado at Boulder. In spring 1998, at the recommendation of the campus chief of police, a group of university staff attended an informational meeting of the Longmont Community Justice Partnership (LCJP). In addition to me then serving as the director of the Office of Judicial Affairs, the group included the director of the Ombuds Office, director of the Office of Victim Assistance, campus police, and representatives from the Boulder County district attorney’s office and sheriff ’s office. This was our introduction to the concept of RJ and it seemed to be a natural fit with student conduct work, where typically, in about 80% of our cases, students accepted responsibility for their actions, even if they did not understand the impact (Sebok, 2006; Sebok & Goldblum, 1999). It took about a year to achieve wide buy-in from university administration and partners, obtain grant funding from the Department of Justice for a graduate assistant, become trained RJ facilitators, and partner with LCJP for technical assistance. Our first community group conference was held in April 1999. Over the years, the program has continued to develop, using different models. (Continues)

restorative justice from theory to practice  

213

Box 9.1.  (Continued )

In February 2000, I presented a session at the annual Association for Student Judicial Affairs (ASJA; rebranded the Association for Student Conduct Administration [ASCA] in 2016) called “From Tribal Justice to Restorative Justice.” There was tremendous interest, and at the next annual conference in 2001, a group of us presented a half-day preconference program. Meanwhile, David Karp2 was developing an RJ program at Skidmore College and went on to advocate for the use of RJ in higher education as well as conduct research on the efficacy of using RJ in sexual misconduct cases. Numerous institutions also began developing and utilizing various kinds of RJ programs, and RJ programs were presented regularly at ASJA/ASCA. Other professional associations have hosted programs and presented training sessions. Businesses were developed to assist universities and colleges to develop their own RJ programs and train facilitators. Now, 21 years after the University of Colorado adopted RJ into its program, RJ has become institutionalized in the field of student conduct. RJ language has entered the vernacular. Many student conduct offices have restorative language as part of their names and others use RJ as the central tenet of their student conduct functions, including for example, the University of Michigan’s Office of Student Conflict Resolution. I am very proud to have been involved in RJ’s small beginning in higher education and even prouder of other practitioners who have adapted and expanded the concepts of RJ into what we see today. The main principles of RJ involve a shift in the paradigm of how we look at offenses, campus violations, or crimes. Instead of misdeeds being considered violations of laws or local standards, they are considered violations of people, relationships, and community. RJ considers that these violations create obligations, the greatest of which is to identify and repair the harm resulting from the offender’s behavior. This is accomplished, to whatever extent possible, by holding offenders directly responsible to those harmed rather than or in addition to systemic accountability for rules broken. This is usually done in face-to-face encounters and can also be accomplished shuttle diplomacy style or remotely so that victims can participate without the need for in-person engagement. In some cases, surrogate victims who have faced similar situations are able to represent the experience of the harmed party. RJ prioritizes the voice of victims and, in some cases, other affected community members in the conciliatory process and outcomes.

214 pathways within the spectrum model    The goal is to provide a meaningful, healing, and satisfying result for all involved (Zehr, 2002). Howard Zehr (2002), a pioneer in the field, defines RJ as “a process to involve, to the extent possible, those who are most involved in or have a stake in a specific offense and to collectively identify and address harms, needs and obligations, in order to heal and put things as right as possible” (p. 37). Zehr developed three questions that have guided RJ: 1. What is the harm that has been done? 2. How can that harm be repaired? 3. Who is responsible for the repair? These contrast with the questions implicitly or explicitly asked in criminal justice and often in campus adjudication, including the following: What law or rule was broken? Who broke it? How should the offender be punished? While the focus of the criminal justice system is predominantly on the rights of the offender, and the system is designed to keep the offender and victim apart, RJ strives to balance the rights and needs of all involved in or impacted by an offense. The principle is that offenders need to learn empathy and understanding about how their actions affected others. They need to accept responsibility and be accountable for their choices and actions and need to have support in making changes in their lives and in reintegrating into their communities (when appropriate). Victims/harmed parties need information about the offense; for healing to begin, they often need to know the answers to “Why did this happen?” and “Why me?” They also need a greater sense of safety, a voice in the process and a say in the outcome, validation, restitution where applicable, and a sense of justice served. The community needs an opportunity to express its concern as primary or secondary victim and encouragement to be involved in the welfare of its members (Zehr, 2002). Key factors in the success of RJ are voluntary engagement of the parties, thus creating buy-in of its goals and outcomes, acceptance of responsibility by the offender, and the underlying philosophy of RJ—reintegrative shaming. The basis of this philosophy is that disapproval of behavior can be expressed in an atmosphere of respect while providing support for the offender (Cameron & Thorsborne, 2001; Strickland, 2004). Neither reintegrative shaming nor the RJ process is meant to judge whether a person is good or bad. It is the behavior rather than the offender that is confronted and condemned in favor of more constructive behavior moving forward. The results of using RJ in the criminal justice system continue to be encouraging. Early research has found that victims and the affected community were more satisfied with the process and outcomes of RJ than with the

restorative justice from theory to practice  

215

criminal justice system. Offenders were also more satisfied and more likely to comply with outcomes or agreements than with sentencing conditions. They were also less likely to reoffend (Ierley & Classen-Wilson, 2003). When the original edition of this book came out, there was little research on the efficacy and impact of RJ on college campuses. Since that time, there have been significant research studies, numerous articles, and doctoral dissertations with similar encouraging data indicating greater victim and offender satisfaction with the process and outcome, higher compliance with and completion rates of agreements, and improvements in learning outcomes (Karp & Allena, 2004; Koss et al., 2014).

RJ Goals When applied in the educational environment, RJ shares some generally desired outcomes with criminal justice and conduct programs, including risk management, community safety, and offender accountability and rehabilitation. However, restorative practices offer additional opportunities and outcomes consistent with the mission of higher education, including behavioral, developmental, and interpersonal goals. These may include the following: Being victim centered and offender focused, as well as appropriately trauma informed Maintaining an environment in which compliance with community standards is an outcome of understanding and a sense of community (Morrison, 2005) Encouraging accountability and responsibility through personal reflection within a collaborative process Reintegrating offending students into the community as valuable contributing members Creating caring climates that support healthy communities, lifestyles, and choices (Amstutz & Mullett, 2005) Creating a culture of inclusion and belonging Helping offending students understand the harm they have caused and develop empathy Listening and responding to needs of offenders and victims Preventing escalation of violence Promoting collaborative problem-solving Promoting resiliency Teaching and modeling negotiation and mediation skills Complying with federal laws

216   

pathways within the spectrum model

Whatever restorative oriented model is used, answering the following questions should be central to the process: What happened? Who has been affected and how? How can the harm be repaired? How can the offender and others make better future choices? In some cases, RJ programs may be used as diversions from a traditional disciplinary process or as an alternative to sanctions like suspension that separate the offender from their community. In others, they may be used as sanctions with the consent of the offender and victim, such as in victim panels and community restitution/­restoration corps. Even when colleges do not have formal RJ programs, they can still introduce restorative practices and language to help authentically move the program in a more restorative than criminal justice–inspired direction. Chapter 11 covers this opportunity for innovation in some detail. For example, instead of talking about policies or laws that were violated or focusing on quasilegal processes, a conduct administrator might discuss and help the student identify who was affected and what harm was caused by the student’s behavior. In another example, hearing officers can prioritize targeted educational sanctions that help the student offender repair harm and make better future choices over those that exact a more punitive outcome.

Essential RJ Factors Whatever the model, some factors are essential for RJ programs in colleges and universities to be effective. Offending students must accept responsibility for their actions and be held accountable directly to those whom they have harmed, as well as accountable to the university. Victims and other impacted parties must be given a voice in the process, and the focus of the process must be on harm rather than on rule-breaking. In addition, there must be an understanding and acknowledgment that relationships are central to building a sense of community, belonging, and ownership. Conflicts should be viewed as learning opportunities, particularly in helping students learn to solve their own conflicts. The administration should ensure that the program is culturally and developmentally appropriate for diverse student populations and that collaborative problem-solving is encouraged. Students should be empowered to change and grow through storytelling and the appropriate expression of emotions, active listening, and development of empathy (Amstutz & Mullett, 2005). RJ is, at heart, optimistic, responsive, pragmatic, and capacity-building for all involved. RJ practices are not appropriate in all cases. If the offender does not accept responsibility, or the perception of basic facts of a situation differ, an investigative and/or adjudicatory process may be more appropriate. In addition, if the offender is defensive and/or the harmed party may be revictimized

restorative justice from theory to practice  

217

in the process, RJ will not be effective. In cases in which there is a great power differential, intimidation, retaliation, or stalking, processes that keep participants apart may be the most appropriate. Finally, schools that have a very authoritarian or hierarchical approach to behavior management are unlikely to find RJ approaches to their liking. Adequate training and other resources are essential to the success of RJ programs. While some processes may take little financial resources or training, such as some uses of circles introduced in chapter 13, others like community group conferencing are time and resource intensive. Programs may take quite a while to get started unless they have dedicated staff with the training and fortitude necessary to introduce, measure, and sustain the investment. It is also important for all staff involved to be sufficiently trained in RJ principles and practices so that victims do not experience further harm and the process does not get derailed by a dominant party. The design and components of training programs are critical to the success of RJ efforts. If inadequately trained, practitioners may have no effect on participants or even do harm through revictimization. Aspects of training should include the following: Determining which situations are appropriate for RJ interventions Determining the appropriate people to invite and engaging them effectively in the process Preparing for the process Dealing with issues that may arise during the process, such as revictimization, victim-blaming, intimidation, unwillingness to accept responsibility, reluctance to speak during the process, or a solely punitive mind-set Writing agreements that are doable, clear, realistic, and measurable Monitoring compliance with agreements and following up with participants Knowing when and how to call off a process if it is not working well Ensuring that facilitators can handle the strong emotions that are often an inherent part of the process (Cameron & Thorsborne, 2001) Finally, it is important to assess RJ programs to ensure they are being appropriately used and that they meet goals in an effective manner. When administrated by trained practitioners with a broad understanding of underlying principals, RJ has been shown to support students in their individual growth and ability to manage conflicts, as well as support communities by assisting students to see their interrelated roles as members of a diverse learning community.

218   

pathways within the spectrum model

Applying Restorative Principles Situations in which RJ is most applicable are those in which there is a normative violation that has an impact on other individuals or the community. RJ programs have been effectively used to address everything from vandalism by intoxicated students to out-of-control parties and even riots. Most often, RJ programs serve as diversions from traditional disciplinary or criminal justice systems. At the University of Colorado at Boulder (n.d.), student offenders may be referred to the RJ program by the court, police officers, or a conduct officer. The incentive for students to take part in RJ programs may be a clear disciplinary record if students successfully complete the program. At the University of Michigan (2019), the conduct function is managed in the context of a variety of conflict resolution options. Misconduct often results in impacts that involve livability or qualityof-life issues for other members of the university community, as well as those who live and work close to campuses. This is particularly true with the emergence of COVID-19 protocols meant to mitigate community spread and the challenges that result from conduct that violates health and safety efforts, including lack of social distancing, failure to wear a facial covering, and limiting the number of people at gatherings. In addition, when students abuse alcohol, other students may find their sleep or study time interrupted. Friends find themselves in the role of “babysitter” in order to tend to others who are highly intoxicated to make sure they are safe. Students who are too intoxicated to make healthy choices may have unsafe, unprotected, or nonconsensual sex. Campuses, local businesses, and neighbors often deal with trash, vandalism, vomiting, and public urination on their properties, as well as the noise and disruption caused by loud parties. Fights and sexual assaults are often alcohol related. As far back as a decade ago, it was estimated that between 50% and 80% of campus violence is alcohol related (DeJong, 2004). In addition, 2.8 million college students were found to drive while they are under the influence of alcohol, placing themselves and all around them at risk (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2007). Colleges often depend on basic awareness programs and/or zero-­ tolerance policies to deal with misconduct; however, evidence indicates that these have had little success overall (DeJong, 2004). College disciplinary ­systems respond to individual cases but often do not work as a deterrent and rarely work to promote cultural change. Interventions at the individual level cannot resolve problems that are part of the cultural landscape (Karp et al., 2002). In addition, efforts based on purely moral grounds are likely to be ineffective (DeJong, 2004). The most effective way to reduce problems like failure to abide by evolving pandemic guidance, alcohol abuse, or sexual

restorative justice from theory to practice  

219

misconduct on campuses is to change the culture and environment that promotes them.

RJ Program Models No one model encompasses how RJ might be fully operationalized on a college campus. The most common programs include victim-offender dialogue, community group conferencing, victim panels, and community accountability boards.

Community Group Conferences Community group conferences are the most traditional of RJ models and are often called circles based on the physical placement of the people involved. Community group conferences can be especially effective in dealing with cases that have a wider impact or when others have been harmed. In community group conferences, the student offender is involved in face-to-face dialogue with the people who were most affected by the student offender’s behavior. The circle of participants is enlarged to include supporters of the offender and the victim. Each person has an opportunity to speak, and all participants must listen. There is no back-and-forth adversarial discussion, which creates an atmosphere in which the student offender may be less defensive and more open to hearing and understanding the impact of their actions. The group discusses the incident and identifies the harm done, both to the victim and others. The members then work to come to a consensus and develop an agreement on how the offender can repair the harm and what needs to be done to help the offender make better future choices. The circle is a safe place for friends and supporters to express concern about the student offender’s behavior, such as drinking or other drug use. The circle also provides a forum for building or rebuilding positive relationships. Because all participants have a stake in the outcome, there is incentive for all to make the agreement work. Some facilitators may even have a relevant professional, such as a substance abuse counselor or sexual assault educator, present to participate in the circle to address issues directly and personally. These participants may also provide a reality check about student behavior in the context of college life, as many have an inflated estimation of what “normal” looks like when it comes to alcohol consumption or rate of sexual behavior.

Community Accountability Boards Community accountability boards are often used for violations involving quality-of-life or “livability” issues. They are particularly effective when a

220 pathways within the spectrum model    victim or specific harmed party cannot be identified or does not want to participate in a circle or when the community is the victim. Accountability boards are also valuable when large numbers of cases require a response that is timelier and less resource intensive than community group conferences, or if there is a single case with a large number of alleged offenders as might be found in reports about large parties, tailgate activity, residential violations when rooms are checked over campus breaks, large-scale classroom cheating, organizational events, and so forth. The key is that the board members give expression to the community’s norms and expectations and offenders are held directly accountable to the impacted community. Community accountability boards are typically composed of members of a community and an adviser. For college student offenses, such boards may be composed of members of impacted neighborhoods, peer students, faculty, or a mix of constituent representatives. Offenders tell their story to the board members, then hear the impact of their actions from either the involved parties or from members of the board. The board determines an outcome, or the student and the board members negotiate a contract. Outcomes from accountability boards often include community restitution in the form of service in the impacted or harmed community. Many community accountability boards work directly with neighborhood groups and associations, or with municipal programs to sponsor and supervise such programs. For example, students who throw a party that gets out of control may find themselves picking up party litter in their neighborhood, side by side with neighbors. This can further help them get to know one another as individuals.

Victim-Offender Dialogue When traditional disciplinary or intervention programs are used, it may be clear to the administrator involved that the student offender does not realize the effect of their actions, the scope of the impact, or the potential risk the offender posed, and would benefit from hearing directly from the harmed party (Koss et al., 2014). A facilitated dialogue between the victim and the offender can be helpful in this regard. The facilitator’s role is scripted; to ensure the discussion is appropriate, each party has an opportunity to speak without interruption and the other party is encouraged to really hear what they say. The facilitator checks the parties’ understanding throughout, as well as ensures that the dialogue is productive and not re-victimizing or victimblaming. An agreement may or may not be the result of this process, depending on the needs of the individuals. While some programs and practitioners

restorative justice from theory to practice  

221

refer to this dialogue process as victim-offender mediation (VOM), others, including this chapter contributor, discourage incorporating mediation as the term of preference, as mediation is a distinct process and denotes a mutual agreement to mediate a conflict, without accounting as readily for victimoffender dynamics.

Victim Panels In some cases, the victim may not be known, or the victim may not feel comfortable interacting directly with the offender or sharing how they were affected. In other instances, administrators may not have the appropriate experience or skill set to facilitate or mediate the interaction. In situations like these, panels may be composed of “surrogate” victims who have had similar experiences and who can effectively communicate the victim’s ­perspective in place of the actual victim. Victim panels are typically used as sanctions. The goal is to help identify the harm that was caused or could have been caused by the offender’s actions, as well as to help the offender develop empathy.

Restorative Circles At times the line between victim and offender is blurred, such as in fights or mutual harassment. In other situations, there may be ongoing tension between individuals or groups of students, and there is concern that the conflict may erupt. In such instances a modification of the community group conference may be used. The goal of restorative circles is to restore the sense of peace and community, to defuse tensions and conflicts, and to explore mutual responsibility and impact (University of Colorado at Boulder, n.d.). Restorative circles can also be used to negotiate rules of engagement between individuals or groups.

Reentry Circles Some offenses may be so serious that separation or suspension from the college or university is necessary and appropriate. RJ can still be effective in the form of reentry circles following the period of suspension when a student is ready to return to campus. The process is like the community group conference but without the goal of developing a contract to repair harm. The goals of reentry circles are to clear the air of outstanding grievances, check in to see how everyone is doing, and assist the offender in re-assimilating into the community. It is important that the affected community hear the

222 pathways within the spectrum model    offender accept responsibility for their actions, as well as for the offender to understand the scope of the impact. The offender may also share what has happened during their absence, including any intervention strategies used, to demonstrate that the risk of a recurrence of behavior is not likely or that the offender is committed to upholding community norms.

Check-In Circles Check-in circles may be useful for students in recovery programs or who are healing from trauma. It is a communication tool that allows group members to check in with one another on how they are doing with the recovery process. It differs from group therapy in that no one provides therapy or has greater power than any of the others in the circle. Members provide mutual support as well as share observations and concerns about each other. In addition, should a member leave the recovery program because of a relapse, the check-in circle can help that person explain what happened and ease reintegration into the group (Reistenberg, 2005). Check-in circles can also be used in smaller communities, such as residence hall floors or living units, to ensure that any lingering concerns, hurts, resentments, and other emotions after an incident are attended so that there is peace. In fact, these are sometimes called “peace-making circles.”

Restoration Corps Finally, in response to quality-of-life violations, students may be assigned or may agree to perform community restitution to directly repair environmental harm. When large numbers of students are involved or such assignments occur regularly, establishing a program to manage the logistics can make this more effective and efficient. The University of Colorado at Boulder (n.d.) had a program called the Buff Restoration Corps, in which a volunteer takes students to clean up party debris on Saturday mornings.

Conclusion Great care should be taken before creating and utilizing an RJ program. Some schools have instituted what amounts to “RJ Lite,” which uses the language of RJ, but in which facilitators are not well trained or the program does not have wide buy-in. It may also be inappropriately used in lieu of severe but appropriate sanctions or to avoid hearings designed to more fully investigate and address community violations. If not done well or

restorative justice from theory to practice  

223

appropriately, the interactions between parties in the name of RJ may not be as meaningful and RJ’s goals are unlikely to be met. In these instances, victims are more likely to be further harmed. In addition, RJ may be exploited as a real or perceived easy way out of serious community harms and consequences. Since the original publication of this chapter, new Title IX processes and roles have been created to comply with shifting federal guidance related to sexual misconduct, harassment, and campus gender equity. These interventions have been further impacted by recent successful litigation against campuses introduced on behalf of respondents, and challenges to trauma-informed considerations some say go too far and compromise an equitable process for respondents. In response, campus investigation and adjudication practices continue to use a scripted, adversarial, and court-like approach out of an abundance of care, and trauma-informed protocol is in flux; in the mix is a sincere and sometimes misguided interest in introducing RJ programs that bypass formal hearing processes. However, parties should never be coerced or forced to take part in RJ, as by its very nature, the process must be entered voluntarily for all involved. Moreover, the short- and longer-term needs and rights of all parties must be protected, which poses a special challenge to RJ processes in which the wishes of a survivor may continue to evolve and the respondent’s participation hinges on their acceptance of wrongdoing. While there are Title IX cases that may benefit from RJ concepts, it is not a substitute when due process protections are necessary. In addition, given the dynamics of sexual harassment and misconduct, these cases require extraordinarily skilled facilitators and should not be taken on lightly as participants may be harmed and the university may find itself in violation of Title IX precepts.

Summary When used appropriately by trained facilitators, RJ can have a truly transformative effect on individual students involved with incidents. The process can promote better communication and increased motivation to change behavior on the part of the offender. Because of the nature of interactions in RJ processes, the consequences (which may differ little from those given in formal disciplinary processes) tend to be more meaningful and have a deeper and longer-lasting impact. The involvement of victims and other harmed/affected parties promotes the building of a sense of community that cares about all its members, even offenders, while it can help victims recover or heal.

224   

pathways within the spectrum model

Questions for Reflection and Dialogue Discuss the numbered scenarios drawing from the following questions: What would make this case a good fit for RJ? What would make this case a bad fit for RJ? What other parties might be impacted by the behavior and in what way? Which RJ model seems the best fit for the case? What harms may have occurred? What difficulties may arise and how do you handle them? What kinds of outcomes may be effective restorative responses? 1. “Deadnaming.” Professor Smith is a tenured faculty member in the Information Management program. He is a stickler when it comes to information in databases. Shannon Jones is a transgender woman who is in the process of transitioning and has not yet legally changed her name from her birthname James Jones. She has listed Shannon as her preferred name. Before the first day of class, Shannon sent Professor Smith an email, asking him to call her by her preferred name, in line with university policy. However, on the first day of class, when Professor Smith called roll, he used James instead of Shannon, because that is the “official” name. He refused to consider anything else. Shannon was very upset at being outed as transgender. 2. ABC fraternity had a pig roast on their Founder’s Day celebration. Alcohol was flowing freely at the party. At the end of the party, the pig’s head was left. Two fraternity members, Joe and Alan, who were highly intoxicated, thought it would be funny to leave the pig’s head on the doorstep of the historically Jewish sorority, XYZ. They also smeared the fat of the pig on both the front door and the mezuzah (a mezuzah is a scroll of parchment, inscribed with Torah passages, that is placed on the door posts of Jewish homes as a symbol of Jewish identity and in compliance with a commandment in Deuteronomy 6:4–9) on the side of the door. In addition, they used a permanent marker to draw swastikas on the door and sorority sign. When the women saw all this the next morning, they felt targeted and fearful. Three of the members had grandparents who were Holocaust survivors, one of whom lost all their immediate and extended family in Auschwitz. The young men’s actions were caught on a security camera and they were identified. 3. Mary and Janice are first-year students. Janice’s boyfriend, Kenan, had recently broken up with her. He then began dating Mary. Janice was

restorative justice from theory to practice  

225

livid and began sending Mary nasty texts, accusing her of stealing her boyfriend. Mary also found her email was subscribed to at least 35 websites. The spam mail she received was unrelenting. Janice also put Mary’s name and phone number in a Craigslist ad as a private stripper and she received many salacious calls. Mary heard one of Janice’s friends say that Janice was bragging about doing this. Mary reported it to her hall director. 4. Aria and Jaden were in an acting class together. They sometimes paired up for acting exercises. Jaden really liked Aria and wanted to hang out outside of class. He would text her often, inviting her to go to the dining hall with him or out to movies or other activities. Aria was not interested and told Jaden she just wanted to be friends. Jaden continued to send texts to her, as many as 10 each day, and showed up on her residence hall floor or near her classes. Jaden put under her room door a copy of a journal in which he had drawn pictures of them together. When Aria asked him to stop, he said he was only doing it as “friends.” His actions continued. This made Aria freak out and she reported it to the Title IX office. Jaden admitted his actions but said she had asked to be his friend and he was only treating her as such. Aria asked for a no contact order and refused to take part in any kind of process that would find her interacting with Jaden.

Notes 1. A note about the language used: Although many advocates use the terms respondent or perpetrator and complainant or survivor, especially in sexual misconduct cases, the chapter contributor uses the terms offender, victim, harmed party and affected community/individuals. These are commonly used in restorative justice (RJ). In addition, cases other than sexual misconduct comprise most RJ cases. The chapter contributor acknowledges that the term victim may be triggering and urges RJ practitioners to take this into consideration. 2. David Karp also wrote the following book, which the chapter contributor highly recommends: Karp, D. (2019). The little book of restorative justice for colleges and universities, 2nd ed. Good Books.

References Amstutz, L., & Mullett, J. (2005). The little book of restorative discipline for schools. Good Books.

226   

pathways within the spectrum model

Bargen, C., Edwarrds, A., Hartman, M., Haslett, J., & Lyons, A. (2018). Serving crime victims through restorative justice: A resource guide for leaders and practitioners. Alberta Restorative Justice Association. https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/adb2db_ 0aa56dae8ae149808afac83b6869546d.pdf Brown, J. (2018). Is social media bad for you? The evidence and the unknowns. BBC. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180104-is-social-media-bad-for-you-theevidence-and-the-unknowns Cameron, L., & Thorsborne, M. (2001). Restorative justice and school discipline: Mutually exclusive? In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative justice and civil society (pp. 180–194). Cambridge University Press. DeJong, W. (2004). The impact of alcohol on campus life. In D. Karp & T. Allena (Eds.), Restorative justice on the college campus: Promoting student growth and responsibility and reawakening the spirit of campus community (pp. 101–119). Charles C. Thomas. Ducharme, J. (2018). Here’s why you can shut out the shock of mass shootings. Time. http://time.com/5116457/kentucky-marshall-county-shooting-desensiti zation/ Gaitho, M. (2018). What is the real impact of social media? Simpli Learn. https:// www.simplilearn.com/real-impact-social-media-article Harper, S., Naskaly, J., Kirkner, A., & Lorenz, K. (2017). Enhancing Title IX due process standards in campus sexual assault adjudication: Considering the roles of distributive, procedural and restorative justice. Journal of School Violence 16(3), 302–316. Ierley, A., & Classen-Wilson, D. (2003). Making things right: Restorative justice for school communities. In T. Jones & R. Compton (Eds.), Kids working it out (pp. 199–219). Jossey-Bass. Karp, D., & Allena, T. (2004). Restorative justice on the college campus. Charles C. Thomas. Karp, D., Breslin, B., & Oles, P. (2002). Community justice in the campus setting. Conflict Management in Higher Education Report, 3(1). http://www.skidmore .edu/campusrj/karp-vitae-files/misc-publications/Community_Justice_in_a_ Campus_Setting.pdf.pdf Keller, M. (2013, May/June). Social media and interpersonal communication. Social Work Today 17(2), 10. https://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/051313p10 .shtml Koss, M., Wilgus, J., & Williamsen, J. (2014). Campus sexual misconduct: Restorative justice approaches to enhance compliance with Title IX guidance. Trauma, Violence & Abuse 15(3), 242–257. Morrison, B. (2005, March). Building safe and healthy school communities: Restorative justice and responsive regulation. Paper presented at the meeting of Building a Global Alliance for Restorative Practices and Family Empowerment, Part 3, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia.

restorative justice from theory to practice  

227

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2007). What colleges need to know now: An update on college drinking research (NIH Publication No. 07-5010). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Reistenberg, N. (2003). Restorative schools grants final report—January 2002–June 2003. Minnesota Department of Education. Reistenberg, N. (2005). PEASE Academy: The restorative recovery school. http://www .safersanerschools.org/library/peaseacademy.html Sebok, T. (2006). Restorative justice on campus: Repairing harm and building community. In J. Lancaster (Ed.), Exercising power with wisdom: Bridging legal and ethical Practice with intention (pp. 63–76). College Administration Publications. Sebok, T., & Goldblum, A. (1999). Establishing a restorative justice program. Journal of the California Caucus of College and University Ombuds, 2(1), 13–22. Silver Gate Group. (2002). Restorative justice on the new frontier. Prevention File, 17(2), 7–9. Strickland, R. (2004). Restorative justice. Peter Lang. University of Colorado at Boulder. (n.d.). Restorative justice. https://www.colorado .edu/sccr/restorative-justice-0 University of Michigan. (2019). Resolution options. https://oscr.umich.edu/ Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Good Books.

10 N E G O T I AT I N G P E A C E ON CAMPUS THROUGH SHUTTLE DIPLOMACY Jennifer Meyer Schrage and Veronica Hipolito Unless both sides win, no agreement can be permanent. —President Jimmy Carter

Introduction Student activists take over a student organization’s space and arrange a sitin to protest the group’s alleged misogynistic behavior. A campus building’s namesake is identified as racist and ignites campus demonstrations. Students threaten a boycott to demand divestment from an alleged unethical institutional vendor with accusations of labor exploitation. A class syllabus includes content that is considered anti-Semitic and students organize a campus-wide walk-out in solidarity. These scenarios represent the vast array of conflict incidents occurring with increasing frequency on college campuses in recent years. Culture, race, gender, ethnicity, religion, class, and other social identities often sit at the heart of many campus conflicts, making these incidents deeply personal, multilayered, and extremely complex. For these scenarios, the shuttle diplomacy pathway on the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) provides a meaningful and productive way forward. In this chapter, we introduce the concept of shuttle diplomacy and provide an overview of the benefits of the process option as an integrated link to an institution’s educational mission and core values. We also provide practical application considerations and note the ethical boundaries 228

negotiating peace on campus  

229

associated with this pathway. Finally, we offer resources for further study on the approach.

The Power of Shuttle Diplomacy The term shuttle diplomacy surfaced in the early 1970s to describe negotiations by U.S. diplomats attempting to broker a peace deal in the Middle East by meeting with nation-state representatives separately because direct engagement was impossible (Hoffman, 2011). Using shuttle diplomacy, President Jimmy Carter successfully facilitated an agreement between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin at the 1977 Camp David Accords. Campus conflicts do not present a threat of war; still, there is a parallel between the dynamics that might prompt international negotiations and the passionate perspectives, potential for misunderstanding, and significant distrust and pain (often linked to a group’s oppression stretching deep into history) that make face-to-face conflict management on campus untenable. Shuttle diplomacy is a pathway and set of strategies that draws from related process options found along the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) to help deeply divided parties manage conflict constructively and safely and in ways that facilitate sustainable brokered agreements moving forward, without the need to share space or engage in face-to-face dialogue and agreement-building. As the name implies, shuttle diplomacy requires a trained, skilled, and trusted negotiator to shuttle between parties rather than sit with them together in a shared physical space. In this way, the process offers a unique trust-building opportunity for the negotiator and the parties while providing a safe space for individual parties to express grievances with and through the negotiator (Hoffman, 2011). It is difficult for a person in conflict to fully comprehend another party’s story until they feel their own story is fully understood. When direct engagement fails or is unwelcome or unrealistic, parties may particularly value the individual opportunity to tell their story to a nonaligned third party without the need to defend, posture, position, and compete with a perceived adversary in the room. This can then help advance parties toward the next phase of finding solutions and crafting a way forward, using shuttle diplomacy as the vehicle for conflict resolution. Shuttle diplomats who practice through the lens of inclusive excellence and demonstrate deep intercultural competence are particularly positioned to encourage each party to tell their own authentic story and feel heard and validated before the process and help bridge positions and perspectives between parties throughout the process.

230   

pathways within the spectrum model

Shuttle Diplomacy’s Alignment With Inclusive Excellence and Student Learning Shuttle diplomacy is particularly useful when a values-based conflict escalates, grows, and expresses itself in campus activism. We know that student activism is increasing both on college and university campuses and in K–12 education, with 1 in 10 incoming college students expressing an intent to engage in activism during their time on campus (Barnhardt & Reyes, 2016). An institution’s thoughtful engagement and negotiation with student activists in cases of escalating conflict and community unrest can model a working commitment to values such as integrity, excellence, and community (Barnhardt & Reyes, 2016). Further, listening to students and inviting civil discourse that produces mutually beneficial and transparent results that align with campus culture increase understanding and learning while often producing necessary social change (Barnhardt & Reyes, 2016). As such, having a proactive and reactive set of situational strategies at the ready when conflict begins to escalate on campus (or is anticipated to escalate) is critical to not only risk management but also demonstrating inclusive excellence and deep conflict capacity. When conflict is triggered and escalates in ways that prompt risk management as the immediate priority, trespass policies and other institutional levers exist to shut down a campus protest or demonstration. While these actions are a necessary part of the institutional toolbox, the mistake many make is waiting in a conflict until control rather than collaborative strategies are required. Offering pathways along a more integrated conflict resolution continuum including shuttle diplomacy provides a productive space as the conflict evolves for all stories to be told in ways that often prompt a more effective and just response. Shuttle diplomacy provides a process that affirms all student voices and the dignity that comes with “I hear you” and “I understand what you are saying.” This approach is more aligned with inclusive excellence and the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion that are core to most institutions today. A pathway that encourages parties to stop shouting (or raising their voices in sometimes destructive ways) and start talking (albeit indirectly) also aligns with the campus values of civil discourse, learning, dignity, free speech, and community responsibility and remains a critical educational need. This is particularly true in the United States, and around the globe, as leaders invest in a preference for disruption and aggression to force positions forward that often do not represent the majority will of the people but rather the loudest voices. The educational benefit of offering shuttle diplomacy as one of many pathways on the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) is profound.

negotiating peace on campus  

231

Teaching the Integrative Negotiation Mind-Set Through Shuttle Diplomacy Shuttle diplomacy is a form of an integrative negotiation mind-set that facilitates a paradigm shift and teaches lifelong skills foundational to career and personal success. An integrative negotiation frame assumes potential value creation for all parties and asserts a win-win solution (a mutually satisfying outcome where parties are not required to compromise core needs and interests) is possible in almost any conflict. This win-win possibility rests on the assumption that the parties focus on interests and needs (as opposed to positions) and creatively explore options for meeting those needs together (Fisher et al., 2011). The Camp David Accords mentioned previously represent a prime example of integrative negotiation in the international context. In cases of campus activism, for example, when campus leaders embrace an integrative/interest-based bargaining mind-set and engage in thoughtful negotiations with students, the gesture can de-escalate conflict and produce beneficial learning and positive impact. Often, these negotiations result in written agreements between student leaders and campus administration to pursue necessary institutional reforms such as increased faculty diversity and expanded support for marginalized communities (Whitford, 2019; Dickey, 2016) An alternative orientation around conflict assumes fixed value and a win-lose dynamic and is known as distributive negotiation (Fisher et al., 2011). An example of a distributive mind-set is Donald Trump’s (1987) espoused approach to negotiation in his book Trump: The Art of the Deal: “I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after” (p. 45). This approach may produce instant gratification and a perception of victory by the one party walking away with more (through use of power and manipulation to force an outcome). This “win,” however, is always temporary. Within the campus context and as applied to campus activism, experts warn higher education institutions against making students the enemy and to refrain from the “us-versus-them” framework, reminding campuses that the “them” in this competitive positional stance is students (Whitford, 2019). In fact, this approach often results in a lose-lose outcome. Consider, for example, the years-long controversy over the placement of Silent Sam (a statue standing at the entrance of campus representing a confederate soldier) at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Student activism in calling for the removal of the statue resulted in student arrests, community disruption, and damaging media coverage. Ultimately, the statue was forcibly taken down by students. A more integrative mind-set by campus leaders at the outset using shuttle diplomacy as a tool for negotiating with student

232 pathways within the spectrum model    activists to develop a solution could have prevented the unnecessary harm to community members.

Student Learning Outcomes and Shuttle Diplomacy The integrative negotiation approach central to shuttle diplomacy is generally considered the ideal approach to negotiations because it builds trust and invests in relationships, paving the way for future ongoing collaboration and engagement. Students who engage with a trusted educator serving as a shuttle diplomat will be guided in real-time toward a new way of thinking about conflict as they experience a process grounded in an integrative mind-set. Using an integrative approach, shuttle diplomats encourage students to engage in these commonly accepted negotiation best practices as set out in Getting to Yes (Fisher et al., 2011). We link each of these negotiation best practices with relevant essential learning outcomes (presented in italics) published by the Association of American Colleges and University (AAC&U, 2007) and provide a campus scenario for each to illustrate the application: 1. Don’t bargain over “positions” Shuttle diplomats can help parties understand that focusing on positions (as opposed to the interests that lie beneath the positions) in a conflict inhibits solutions that address actual underlying interests. Positions are often rooted in narrow understandings of an issue and are wrapped up in individual egos and past arguments between people. Promotes intellectual and practical skills of {{ inquiry and analysis and {{ teamwork and problem-solving. Consider a situation where a dean of students steps in as a shuttle diplomat to assist in resolving a conflict between a student and a staff member in the financial aid office. There is a breakdown in ­ communication resulting from past emotional encounters. Direct engagement between the parties is counterproductive. The shuttle diplomat can help the parties focus on moving forward and the needs that must be met. The shuttle diplomat may address the student’s feeling of being powerless in the face of administrative structures by using the shuttle negotiation process to give voice to their needs. Students often shut down or become frustrated because they feel that administrators “always get their way” or “nothing is ever done for us.”

negotiating peace on campus  

233

The shuttle diplomat can help shift students from a focus on whether this is right or wrong to a focus on solutions for the issue at hand. A party may have also created a caricature of the other party from a one-time interaction or a perception. Implicit bias or bias may skew perceptions of a situation and the shuttle diplomat can help parties explore the impact of potential assumptions on their perception of a problem. By shifting focus and offering a pragmatic approach to finding solutions, an unnecessary escalation that could be counterproductive for both parties is avoided. 2. Separate the people from the problem Shuttle diplomats can assist parties in stepping back to consider the conflict from multiple perspectives, honor and manage emotions, communicate effectively, and reflect on the value of the relationship involved in the conflict. Promotes intellectual and practical skills of communication, and personal and social responsibility, including intercultural knowledge and competence. A staff member working with student leaders can become a shuttle diplomat as they help parties envision how they want to see the relationship exist moving forward. For example, the shuttle diplomat can help members of a student group protesting another student group remember that they will continue to be members engaging together in the same campus community after the conflict is over. The shuttle diplomat can help all parties consider what is needed to preserve the relationship (or at least coexist) once a resolution is reached. Working with parties separately during the shuttle diplomacy process allows parties to speak openly, without emotion impeding the conversation. These situations also offer an opportunity to practice empathy. For example, a student can be asked to describe the issue from the other party’s perspective and describe their needs or experienced feelings. The shuttle diplomat can guide all students involved in this conflict with questions to shed light on a holistic view of the problem. 3. Focus on interests (not positions) Shuttle diplomats encourage parties to explore, name, and talk about their authentic interests that lie beneath their positions so that agreements can meet actual needs. Promotes intellectual and practical skills of { inquiry and analysis and { teamwork and problem-solving.

234 pathways within the spectrum model    This strategy provides an avenue for parties to explore the issues, ask clarifying questions, and review the facts without losing face. A staff member in the Conflict Resolution office can be a shuttle diplomat by asking questions that get below the surface of an issue. Before a formal complaint is filed, a shuttle diplomat can ask parties to explore the issue by writing down their needs and prioritizing this list and hence requiring that the parties think through the issues critically. For example, in a conflict between a professor and a student, a shuttle diplomat may ask questions about why a need was prioritized higher than another. Doing this provides space for reflection and assessment of the issue. Through such a process, a cisgender male student with specific notions about gender roles may discover his grade challenge on a paper and outburst in class have more to do with his notions of masculinity and name the need of feeling respected as more important than receiving a higher grade. Likewise, the cisgender female professor may name the need be treated respectfully in her role as more important than her original demand to have the student immediately removed from the class. 4. Invent options for mutual gain Shuttle diplomats inspire parties to be open-minded, creative, and innovative and to brainstorm options that expand value and consider shared interests to create win-win options. Promotes intellectual and practical skills of critical and creative thinking and personal and social responsibility, including { intercultural knowledge and competence and { ethical reasoning and action. Parties can be guided to take a multidisciplinary approach to ­problem-solving by synthesizing their needs with those of the other party. Parties may also be encouraged to research what others in similar situations have done to resolve their issues and incorporate these ideas into their problem-solving. This may shed light on resolutions that have not been brought to the table. Consider students protesting the cost of tuition for students with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) status. There may be parameters that are nonnegotiable. For example, state regulations may bar DACA students from in-state tuition status and federal regulations prohibit federal financial aid. Administrators may initially assume the students’ expressed needs can’t be met based on these legal obligations. However, a larger conversation about the institution being founded on the premise of open access to higher education aligns the conversation with the values of

negotiating peace on campus  

235

the university and broadens the potential for shared agendas and ideas for mutual gain. Asking the parties to explore what other institutions are doing to support these students may inspire outreach to interested and supportive institutional alums and stakeholders for support. This would strengthen relationships and build trust in the organization as it lives into its espoused values. Focusing on the list of prohibited actions can limit thinking about the possibilities. Shuttle diplomats can reduce the focus on what can’t be done to a dialogue exploring all that can be done. 5. Use objective criteria Shuttle diplomats assist parties in seeking fair standards and reliable information for principled decisions that result in just, reasonable, and sustainable agreements. Promotes intellectual and practical skills of information literacy; personal and social responsibility, including ethical reasoning and action; and integrative learning, including synthesis across studies. Shuttle diplomats provide guidance to parties to seek out facts, research parameters, and identify alignment with institutional mission and values. There may be assumptions about hard and fast rules that, upon investigation, are discovered to have some flexibility. Consider a case where a student conflicts with other members of her student organization concerning a decision about her status. In this organization, advancement to a leadership role or rank relies on very specific types of experiences. In the history of the group, only certain social identities are represented at this level because the “required” experiences are typically acquired only by those with certain privileges and power associated with their identity group status. The student leaders for the organization are hesitant to change the rules as they are very concerned about the reputation of the group having high standards for leadership and a break with tradition, resulting in a drain of support from alum members. Based on encouragement from the shuttle diplomat, parties may explore objective criteria and bring to the table information from chapters at other campuses, with improved access based on more inclusive leadership experience requirements. The shuttle diplomat can help clarify the parameters to achieve a sustainable resolution that ensures the needs are met for all parties. The shuttle diplomat can guide students through a decision-making process that incorporates ethics and is empathetic to the needs of each party.

236   

pathways within the spectrum model

These conflict resolution principles are, to some extent, imbedded across each of the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) pathways. They can “hit home” for students, however, when educators demonstrate with individual parties, in the process of shuttle diplomacy, that they can be successfully applied in the negotiation process and that no conflict is hopeless, even when parties feel unable to engage each other directly, at least early on. Peace and mutual win-win outcomes are always possible because these principles can also still apply (and perhaps are the most relevant) to conflicts so intense that parties choose not to even be in the same room.

Shuttle Diplomacy Models and Pathway Considerations Shuttle diplomacy may be implemented as both an independent pathway and a component of another pathway on the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008). It is best suited for situations where the aims of the process do not focus on or require parties to engage directly at any stage in the conflict resolution experience. The social justice mediation (SJM) model referenced in chapter 8 uses this method. By keeping parties separate (at least in initial stages), the SJM model seeks to address power and oppressive dynamics inherent to institutions and between individuals (New England Association for Conflict Resolution, 2019). Another example of this approach is the model used by the Neighborhood Justice Center of Honolulu, in place since 1979. This mediation approach uses a two-phased approach to conflict: forum stage and the negotiation stage. During the forum stage, the opening statements are made, and parties are then invited to separate sessions. The focus of this stage is discovering all issues as presented distinctly by each party in their own space. Once it is clear to the parties and mediator(s) that all relevant interests have been articulated, the parties move toward the negotiation session to find solutions, eventually meeting in joint session to write an agreement (Hoffman, 2011).

Ethical Considerations The shuttle diplomacy approach is related to “caucusing” within the mediation context where parties can ask to meet privately with or without the mediator, before coming back to the shared mediation table. Typically, though, mediators do not opt to play the role of shuttle diplomat; rather, they encourage parties to bring issues back to the shared table as useful once

negotiating peace on campus  

237

the caucus concludes. Caucusing has inspired some debate in the mediation field in connection to ethical considerations, as it might work against full collaboration and transparency in the problem-solving and agreement-building process (Hoffman, 2011). Shuttle diplomats can respond to these process and ethical concerns by considering the following important questions and establishing clear expectations with all parties before initiating shuttle diplomacy as a process: 1. Is the information shared with the shuttle diplomat(s) in a separate session considered confidential? Is the shuttle diplomat obtaining permission to share the information with the other party? 2. Is the shuttle diplomat sharing information accurately? Is the shuttle diplomat withholding information from one or more parties to consciously or unconsciously prioritize some but not all issues or push toward a premature resolution? 3. Is the shuttle method appropriate based on the needs of the parties? Does the future relationship of the parties rely on direct engagement? Does the process need to provide time in a joint session to practice communicating effectively with one another in the same room? 4. Is the shuttle diplomat using a multipartial approach? Is the shuttle diplomat aware of and accounting for their own internal biases and how social identity and oppression dynamics impact the conflict? These social justice considerations are discussed in depth in chapter 3. 5. Is the shuttle diplomat accounting for power, especially in negotiations between institutional leaders and student activists? Is the dynamic coercive? Setting up ground rules and identifying trusted shuttle diplomats signals an authentic desire to negotiate (not coerce) and can even the playing field. For example, a faculty member from another department and a nonaligned student leader can be paired together to facilitate, or external but qualified third-party negotiators may be engaged with the process. Given these considerations, shuttle diplomats deployed on campus should be selected from a diverse pool based on demonstrated professional integrity and sound judgment and must be provided with training in conflict resolution and best practices. Using a cofacilitator model is also recommended to increase the likelihood of multiple lenses informing the process and to ensure the shuttle diplomats are aware of and accounting for underlying power dynamics.

238   

pathways within the spectrum model

Application Considerations Given its utility and flexibility as a process option that shares strategies with other pathways along the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008), shuttle diplomacy is appropriate for a conflict incident on campus when having parties share space may at least initially inhibit communication. This can especially be the case where social identity and related values are central to the conflict, when emotion and sense of risk is high, when trust between parties is low, and/or when the conflict has escalated into visible and more widespread student community activism. In recent years, shuttle diplomacy has been introduced in sexual misconduct cases, both in formal hearings and as part of informal resolutions. A shuttle approach can be ideal in such cases because it can shield parties from added trauma associated with victimization or stress related to addressing alleged victimization as a respondent. Some schools are facilitating shuttle-style diplomacy within formal adjudication with audio, video, and interactive, chat-based technology to meet procedural due process considerations in formal hearings. In such scenarios, students may still “face” each other remotely as complainant or respondent and address questions directly to each other or as brokered by the hearing officer or chair, while seated in separate rooms throughout. This aligns well with the ethical obligations raised by mental health practitioners advocating for a traumainformed approach but, as discussed in chapter 2, some courts have been unsupportive, citing legal due process obligations in the formal adjudication pathway. Shuttle diplomacy may also be useful for resolving allegations of bias as part of a campus climate conflict. Consider a case where a student posts a picture on social media of a roommate’s insensitive Halloween costume and it goes viral with allegations of racism only for the student to later find out that the intent behind the costume was misconstrued. When the students involved are seeking support and services to resolve the situation and move toward healing, it may not be healthy for parties to be in the same room, at least initially. It may be valuable and preferred for conversations to occur separately. In such cases, shuttle diplomacy can assist in communicating information and resolving the misunderstanding.

Resources and Further Study The methods of shuttle diplomacy are familiar to many educators and practitioners resolving student conflict situations because they sit at the heart of the work and have been implemented in some form by many in

negotiating peace on campus  

239

student conduct practice for decades. That said, the actual naming of “shuttle diplomacy” as a pathway in campus conflict response models was not formally introduced until the publication of the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008). To further explore innovations of this approach, see the following resources: Social Justice Mediation Institute Harvard Negotiation Project Center for Education Diplomacy and Leadership Pathways Institute for Negotiation Education

Conclusion Shuttle diplomacy is a critical process option and offers a set of strategies for campus administrators, particularly in cases of escalated conflict, identity and values-based issues, and expanding community involvement, including vocal activism. Campuses committed to inclusive conflict excellence by balancing social, restorative, transformative and procedural justice on campus through implementing the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) are well served to anticipate a growing need for this approach. Building capacity for shuttle diplomacy with proactive, collaborative and cross-functional protocols, policies, and training will provide significant long-term returns on such investments. While conflict resolution pathways typically encourage parties to come together to shape shared and sustainable solutions, shuttling between parties in an equitable and balanced process is a responsive way to facilitate situational conflict that does not lend itself to encouraging parties to share physical space. As such, it also lends itself to online applications in instances where parties prefer to remain separated or are remote members of the learning community.

Summary Peacemaking on campus in the current context and activist climate requires a toolbox that includes facilitating communications between parties when direct engagement is untenable, unproductive, and perhaps harmful. The pathway of shuttle diplomacy on the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) provides educators with a practical option for moving parties forward toward meaningful solutions and away from disruption. By intervening and nudging parties toward an integrative (win-win) bargaining approach and away from a distributive (win-lose) mind-set, shuttle diplomats engage

240 pathways within the spectrum model    students in conflict management methods that align closely with the essential learning outcomes for higher education (AAC&U, 2007).

Questions for Reflection and Dialogue 1. Shuttle diplomacy can serve as a single pathway for resolution of an incident. In what types of cases would the single pathway approach be best suited? 2. Shuttle diplomacy can serve as a prelude to another process option. In what types of cases would a prelude approach be best suited? 3. What are the benefits and risks associated with a shuttle diplomacy approach? 4. What is the difference between an integrative and distributive mind-set? 5. What student learning outcomes are promoted in successful shuttle diplomacy negotiations?

References Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U). (2007). College learning for the new global century: A report from the national leadership council for liberal education & America’s promise (LEAP). https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/ files/LEAP/GlobalCentury_final.pdf Barnhardt, C. & Reyes, K. (2016, March 2). Embracing student activism. Higher Education Today. https://www.higheredtoday.org/2016/03/02/embracing-stu dent-activism/ Dickey, J. (2016, May 31). The revolution on America’s campuses. Time. https:// time.com/4347099/college-campus-protests/ Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Houghton Mifflin. Hoffman, D. (2011, July). In practice: Mediation and the art of shuttle diplomacy. Negotiation Journal, 27(3), 263–309. New England Association of Conflict Resolution. (2019, May 16). Social justice mediation training/Social Justice Mediation Institute. https://neacr.wildapricot.org/ event-3064013 Schrage, J. M., & Thompson, M. C. (2008, June). Using a social justice model for conflict resolution to ensure access for all students. Paper presented at the Donald D. Gehring Academy for Student Conduct Administration, Salt Lake City, UT. Trump, D. J., Schwartz, T. (1987). Trump: The art of the deal. Random House. Whitford, E. (2019, January 3). Patterns of student protest. Inside Higher Ed. https:// www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/01/03/student-activists-biggest-obstacleoften-rhythms-college-activism-itself

11 OFF SCRIPT Incorporating Principles of Inclusive Conflict Excellence Into Informal and Formal Adjudication Pathways Nancy Geist Giacomini, David R. Karp, Derrick D. Dixon, and Valerie Glassman If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. –Abraham Maslow (1966)

Introduction In this chapter we revisit the form and function of adjudication found across the two remaining pathways (informal and formal) on the right of the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) with a primary focus on undergraduate conduct and conflict management and transferable content for sexual misconduct applications, organizations, nontraditional campus populations, and K–12 student discipline. We offer content on how and why to (re)brand office names and update language used in mission statements, policies, scripted meeting language, reporting and data management forms, correspondence, training materials, and related documents away from legalese while respecting the lens of procedural due process and the necessity of institutional risk management. David Karp’s (2009) original comparison of restorative conference and conduct meeting scripts has been updated and integrated into this chapter to demonstrate both the power of language and structural determinism in the exercise of conduct administration and the opportunity to make space

241

242 pathways within the spectrum model    for less punitive and more restorative practices within informal and formal adjudication pathways. A new hybrid restorative hearing script (Karp, 2014) is introduced alongside a traditional hearing script directly reproduced from Stoner and Lowery (2004) to provoke thought and dialogue within the framework of furthering adjudication goals steadied on foundations of restorative and social justice and informed by the layered lenses of inclusive conflict excellence introduced in chapter 1. Language and principles draw from restorative conference and circle practices introduced in chapters 9 and 13 while advancing an innovative fact-finding approach meant to transform structured student disciplinary practices in ways that act to balance the exercise of authority with trust. While this new script is in use in systems that have authentically adopted true restorative process options under trained staff, here we invite readers to weigh and discuss opportunities to introduce new language and principles within existing and trusted procedural options and language. Chapter contributors, drawing from our collective work as scholar practitioners, share lived experiences of how to repurpose existing language and adjudication pathways from within, even as we aspire to collaborate broadly with campus partners and external stakeholders to bring innovation to student conduct administration in ways that align with inclusive excellence, restorative and social justice, and integrated conflict management. This innovative work began when diverse colleagues came together to advance conflict resolution and restorative justice initiatives at the 2008 Gehring Academy, offered annually by the Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA). It was at this meeting that the original spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) was piloted to expand the model student conduct code (Stoner & Lowery, 2004) and visually plotted a range of modulated resolution options across a continuum with foundations in restorative and social justice. These pioneering efforts led to institutionalized ASCA mediation and restorative justice training and integrated conflict management themes within core adjudication training tracks that continue to shift the field paradigm. In 2008 we posed the question, “Is there room in student judicial affairs for social justice?” with mixed results. After more than a decade, the question becomes, “Is there room in higher education for integrated expressions of social, restorative, transformative, and procedural justice within a framework of inclusive conflict excellence?” This new integrated, inclusive conflict excellence framework developed by Giacomini and Schrage in chapter 1 and featured as Figure 1.1 includes thoughtful and responsive student adjudication pathways that more fully align with educational cultures and balance all the lenses of our work.

off script  

243

There are instances where student behavior is most effectively managed using informal options that prioritize community restoration and individual development. There are also times when more egregious or pervasive behaviors compromise the safety and security of a community and necessitate more structurally formal options, including adjudication before a third-party decision-maker (hearing officer, panel, or board) as a standalone or companion process. Traditional adjudication may further be the pathway of choice for parties who seek a highly structured, rights-based process over one that invites full engagement, collaboration, and harm identification. The beauty of this work is that a full range of tested, transformative language, skills, and process options exist. Maslow’s “hammer” is not our only tool and to see “every problem as a nail” defies a commitment to inclusive conflict excellence. Expanding the toolbox invites practitioners to better respond to the needs, developmental stages, unique circumstances, and multiple identities of individuals with added precision and care and without trading on procedural rights or risk management. The original publication of this chapter coincided with the 2008 rebranding of the Association for Student Judicial Affairs as the Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA), on ASCA’s 20th anniversary. As the leading international association for student conduct professionals, this landmark shift reflected a growing movement away from what Dannells (1997) termed the creeping legalism of campus disciplinary practices and companion language that perpetuated the idea that student adjudication needed to be structured as quasi-courtrooms akin to the criminal justice system. Rebranding was further prompted by the second edition of the model student conduct code (Stoner & Lowery, 2004) in which authors amended original language and practices (Stoner & Cerminara, 1990) to reassert the holistic educational and developmental aims of conduct programs and to mitigate unnecessary legalese. Still another influence in the rebranding of student conduct practice was the growing interest in expanding conduct and conflict resolution options to include mediation, reviewed by Bill Warters in chapter 8. College and university conduct programs have largely followed suit in shifting the paradigm, changing language away from heavy legalese and in many cases expanding conflict resolution and restorative practices to manage student conflict and behavior. Offices of Judicial Affairs have been renamed Offices of Student Conduct or variations on that theme. On some campuses, “Conflict Resolution” is also included in departmental nomenclature. Campus incidents now cross desks as referrals, conduct questions, conflicts, and case reports rather than charges. In 2013, the Higher Education Case Management Association (HECMA) was formed to support a broader

244 pathways within the spectrum model    range of campus administrators charged with “coordinating prevention, intervention, and support efforts across campus and community systems to assist at-risk students and students facing crises” (HECMA, 2013, para. 1). Additionally, hearings as a common term fell out of favor and was replaced by administrative meetings and case management conferences. Today, students are found responsible or not responsible rather than guilty or not guilty of community standard violations. Some institutions have resisted updates like those found in the script for the Stoner and Lowery (2004) student conduct board hearing reviewed later in this chapter. Still, expressions of a more developmental, educational, restorative, and care-centered approach to student conduct and conflict management are now part of the common lexicon; this, despite new tensions created since the U.S. Department of Education’s sexual harassment and misconduct guidance, meant to help satisfy gender equity mandates under Title IX (Ali, 2011). Changes in field jargon continue to reflect a firm commitment to evolving both due process and educational/restorative aims within student disciplinary processes. In this way changing the words we use to communicate the intent of disciplinary processes aligns with hoped-for education-centered outcomes and transformation through linguistics. This idea is in keeping with with assertions by American author Werner Erhard (Block, 2018) who coined the term transformation as applied to personal growth in the early 1970s and champions the idea that linguistics drives all transformation. Transformation speaks to the promising work of ongoing inquiry, evaluation and systemic innovations that embrace an inclusive educational mission within adjudication pathways in order to be responsive to what Stoner and Cerminara (1990) dubbed the “spirit of insubordination,” drawing from Thomas Jefferson’s description of the campus climate of his day. The students of today are not the same as in Jefferson’s day. They are no longer a homogenous class of privileged White male learners; rather, they embody the spirit and spiritedness of youthful to lifelong learners across a full expression of identities, as shared in chapter 1. This inclusive demographic is at the heart of our advocacy for transformed adjudication models. Further, in the current climate, spiritedness shows up as not only organic, localized expressions of student unrest, peaceful protest, and civil disobedience but also coordinated and widespread activism often fueled by social media coalitions and protocol (Crossley, 2008; Jason, 2018; Pedris, 2018). Coordinated student demonstrations are often prompted by toxic campus climates and institutionalized systems that have historically perpetuated injustice, intolerance, patriarchy, and privilege. “Insubordination” flares when external invited speakers promote controversial positions wielding inflammatory

off script  

245

words, questionable institutional investments surface, institutionalized policing practices are challenged, conduct and student sexual misconduct policies are inadequate, and so on. Students and their allies are increasingly open to exercising their First Amendment right of free speech together with civil disobedience (e.g., peaceful protests, sit-ins, student-published narratives, signs and chalkings, hunger strikes) to transform perceived destructive campus cultures and practices while calling into question what it means to be safe and treated justly on campus and in their extended academic community.

An Overview of Adjudication Standards and Common Practices Student conduct and sexual misconduct adjudication processes are guided by case law, federal legislation, and state and local statutes. Professional standards are also published by individual higher education associations, most of which come together with other educational stakeholders across 45 functional areas to generate universal benchmarks and resources under the auspices of the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. The 10th edition of CAS Professional Standards in Higher Education (2019) and companion self-assessment guides (SAGS) offer fully revised universal and function-specific CAS general standards and updated SAGS. Evolving Student Conduct Program standards continue to pay added attention to sexual misconduct, move away from favoring student-led conduct review boards over other adjudication and decision-making practices, and expand process options and inquiry into restorative justice and behavioral intervention teams. Fundamentally, guidance and standards speak to the need for fairness to individuals balanced with administrative efficiency and community considerations. Varner and Taylor provide a robust and thoughtful multiperspective review of early legal and student development reference points in chapter 2, together with a self-assessment worksheet on capacity-building readiness that adds theory to practice context to standards of practice in operation today. Our overview of the two adjudication pathways found on the right side of the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) is based on our own professional experiences, leadership in the field, research, and best practice guidance for managing reports of undergraduate student misconduct. Process and language variations exist within individual undergraduate programs, and for graduate students, violations by recognized student organizations including fraternities and sororities, off-campus conduct, and so forth. Student sexual misconduct and harassment standards and practices, while often designed and administrated in collaboration with conduct, conflict,

246 pathways within the spectrum model    and risk management colleagues, come with their own unique investigation and adjudication standards of practice. At some institutions, the authority to manage cheating and plagiarism allegations is also a distinct process that rests with academic departments, either independently or in collaboration with student conduct programs. Adjudication pathways found on the right side of the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) are triggered by a written report of alleged student misconduct received by an institutional unit (e.g., residence life, student conduct, academic deans/chairs, Title IX coordinator or deputy) from peer and professional staff, faculty, security and policing agencies, and other community stakeholders. In accordance with generally accepted fair “due process” protocol that guides timelines and disclosures, a student is notified of the reported behavior and policy or policies at issue and is invited to share their perspective in a one-on-one meeting with a staff member. This is generally the responding student’s entry point into a student conduct process. During this meeting, the student and staff member may discuss personal issues related to academic and extracurricular experiences, but for many campus systems, the primary purpose of the meeting is to provide process information as the student listens and to determine whether the student understands and agrees or disagrees with the reported conduct violation(s). Based on this determination, the student is typically provided with two resolution pathways: informal or formal adjudication. They may agree with the fact pattern shared in the report, accept responsibility for the conduct allegation(s), waive the option for a more formal process and receive a sanction, or opt to challenge the allegation(s) through a formal adjudication process. Some systems allow the administrator conducting the informal process to apply sanctions only up to a certain severity, often excluding suspension and expulsion. In such cases, the disciplinary process may then require that a panel or more senior hearing officer/adjudicator assign or confirm an escalated sanction such as suspension or expulsion. Students who accept informal resolution also accept the sanctions imposed and waive their right to appeal some or all aspects of this less formal adjudication process. Systems also make allowances to resolve reports and apply sanctions administratively for unique situations like student “no-shows,” mass reports resulting from residence hall student check-out practices over breaks, and expedited interim action for reports requiring immediate action based on risk assessment. Not all initial reports filed are processed through informal and formal adjudication pathways. Even in systems that do not formally include expanded resolution pathways like mediation or restorative conferences and circles, care-based reports that communicate concerns about a student or

off script  

247

student group may prompt outreach and support rather than adjudication. When successful, these informal interpersonal interventions may close a pending report without it becoming part of student conduct record retention or adjudication statistics. Of the reports that do prompt adjudication, most are resolved in one-on-one, informal adjudication meetings by entry- to midlevel student affairs staff. Students may also opt to contest or speak more formally to pending allegations and potential sanctions before a single adjudicator or panel trained to appropriately weigh evidence; determine responsibility; and, if the student is found responsible, assign institutional actions. Some campuses automatically escalate student conduct allegations into more a formal investigation and adjudication pathway when the outcome may result in temporary or permanent separation from the institution. This is particularly true in sexual misconduct and harassment allegations and academic integrity questions managed under specialized process guidelines. Regardless of the informality or formality of the selected adjudication process, administrative procedures are guided in ways meant to provide a student with timely written notice and an opportunity to hear and answer to conduct allegations, including witness accounts, and to receive a written outcome of resolution based on shared information. They also provide a record for the institution that is typically retained years after a student graduates or leaves the school. Records are confidential and may be released with the student’s permission (e.g., when completing transfer, graduate school, and job applications) or by subpoena. A student is found responsible when a single adjudicator (i.e., hearing officer) or body (i.e., board or panel) determines that the information available meets or exceeds the institution’s designated standard of proof, typically preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not a policy violation occurred) or clear and convincing information (i.e., sufficient information to convince a reasonable person that an allegation of misconduct is true). While not required, conduct and student sexual misconduct reports resolved at the most formal levels by an adjudicator or conduct board may allow for some manner of mutual appeal by the respondent and complainant and/or reporting party based on process concerns, new evidence, or sanctions that raise questions of arbitrary or discriminatory practices. Typically, sanctions will be assigned if a student agrees that they are responsible for a policy violation in an initial meeting (informal adjudication) or if they are found responsible through formal adjudication. Sanctions can include institutional status sanctions, such as a warning, defined period of disciplinary probation, temporary suspension, or permanent expulsion from the community. Sanctions can also impact a student’s

248 pathways within the spectrum model    eligibility to participate in sponsored study-abroad programs, join or accept leadership in organizations, work at the institution, attend social events, and/or live on campus. Status sanctions are often paired with additional components designed to support educational and developmental growth. These can include required substance use assessments, academic integrity seminars, reflection papers, and conflict management modules. They might also include the option of participating in voluntary counseling or coaching sessions and mediation and restorative justice circles or conferences. A lower or failing grade with or without a companion transcript notation may result from the resolution of academic cheating and plagiarism violations. Fines, administrative fees, and restitution are less in favor than they used to be based on the disproportionate impact on students of diverse financial means but are still in use today; often, the inequity of fines and fees is mitigated by applying them to directly support the overall student conduct program budget and related developmental services. Throughout the adjudication process, students can find support navigating the system from a variety of professional campus resources, including those offered by conduct offices, case manager and victim support advocates, ombudspersons, and conflict resolution programs. Peers, student leaders, and staff in residence provide additional informal support and resources. Since the original publication of this chapter, the Dear Colleague letter (Ali, 2011) and Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (2013) have created new expectations for managing allegations of sexual- and genderbased misconduct and harassment, shifting responsibilities for some administration and oversight of these cases to Title IX offices and prompting unique guidelines for the management of reports and formal complaints. This protocol has been disrupted with rescinded Dear Colleague and VAWA guidance under a conservative U.S. political administration. While new guidance evolves, some campuses have preemptively adjusted standards of evidence, made allowances for mediation and restorative justice pathways, and added reactive and sanction options aimed at helping a respondent better understand the dynamics of consent, retaliation, healthy sexuality, and domestic violence. Others have opted for status quo while awaiting the full 2020 roll out of new regulations and guidance from the Department of Education.

Transforming Existing Adjudication Models From the Inside Out Endorsing the status quo over creating major change in student sexual misconduct and related student conduct adjudication applications is

off script  

249

understandable for many reasons: (a) Change is hindered by the need for input and approval by internal institutional governing bodies and senior leadership and thus takes time, (b) external legislated guidance is in a state of change, (c) administrators are overburdened with heavy caseloads and limited funds and are lacking in administrative support, (d) the legal and higher education landscapes are in upheaval in ways that test even the most faithful campus interpretations of best practice protocol informed by sustainable case precedent, and (e) campus activists responsive to societal calls for justice transformation are no longer satisfied with promises of meaningful change or even added restorative justice initiatives on campus. Like escalating calls for criminal justice reform, some students and their allies no longer want policy revisions; they demand the wholesale deconstruction of campus conduct and student sexual misconduct policies and processes together with companion investigation and policing practices perceived to perpetuate systemic injustice and harm. Such is the case at Swarthmore College (Pennsylvania) under the leadership of Organizing for Survivors (O4S; see Facebook, and Twitter @O4Sswarthmore), where cyclic, attention-getting activism has taken this small private campus to task with systemic demands, strategic coordinated sit-ins and facility takeovers, hunger strikes, and administrator call-outs. Results have included targeted resignations, external reviews of police and student life programs, and an end to fraternity housing and Greek life. These outcomes to sustained and strategic campus unrest on this and other campuses are uniquely supported by social media that connects, empowers, perpetuates, and celebrates grassroots student activists and their successes. Campus climate in the age of online learning and digital connection, including conflict flare-ups that disrupt operations short and longer term, poses unique student conduct and conflict management challenges when it comes to introducing incremental change. Unintended consequences of entrenched and unresolved conflict include student, staff, and faculty battle fatigue, attrition, an escalation of mental health issues and self-medication, and so on. Students and staff may experience emotions from frustration and anger to apathy and burn out. They may become despondent and left to mutually wonder from their own vantage points whether even a good-faith change effort will matter. Student mental health issues are said to be souring. Professional burnout is reportedly at an all-time high, as is attrition from the field. In addition, oppositional behavior directed at institutions and their actors by way of active lawsuits and threatened litigation on behalf of aggrieved students is on the rise, and administrators and risk managers brace for the latest barrage of legal challenges and resulting case precedents, particularly in the ongoing wake of COVID-19 disruptions. The increase of students (and

250 pathways within the spectrum model    their families) that feel they have been wronged by a campus disciplinary process, and heightened public scrutiny and influence, have instilled a sense of anxiety and even dread in conduct administrators who entered the field hoping to have constructive developmental roles in the lives of their students. Even informal, one-on-one conferences and educational meetings to discuss an alleged violation of community standards can become a source of stress and wariness for both students and staff. A climate of low trust prompts new concerns about whether a private conduct-related meeting will be misrepresented out of turn. With a button click, a student-staff dialogue may secretly be recorded, with the misguided hope of gathering evidence of improper procedure or staff misconduct, should adjudicated actions prompt a future appeal or legal challenge. A study completed by Miller (2018) demonstrated that practitioners who administer sex- and gender-based harassment investigation and adjudication experience significant emotional and physical impacts in response to their job-related functions. Few of these things are conducive to proactive and responsive change management, especially in a field on the front lines of holding students accountable, often for unpopular or uneven expectations (think underage drinking or marijuana use as well as failure to comply with COVID-19 community safety standards such as wearing facial coverings or practicing social distancing) and all while tending to a harmed community. While it is important to name and reconcile these challenges, and to practice self-care, they must not deter campus-based leadership related to student conflict and conduct management premised on inclusive excellence. Being an agent of change must not fall to those with the loudest voice in the room. Change is more meaningfully facilitated in those private, vulnerable conversations between a student and a staff member, when (a) trust-building across identities trumps exercising authority, (b) we orient ourselves to learning and teaching over control and punishment, and (c) individual development and community restoration are as important to the meeting and institutional mission as following a script or keeping up with the latest contested precedent.

Words and Deeds as Expressions of Inclusive Conflict Excellence The philosophic roots of developmental student conduct practices including informal and formal adjudication comprise separating “deed from doer.” This respects the intrinsic human worth of a student respondent, acknowledges individual experiences and responsibilities within a shared community, and makes space for the creation of a supported, constructive future plan of action (Braithwaite & Pettit, 1990). Bryan Stevenson (2014), transformative justice activist and author of Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption,

off script  

251

adapted for the screen in 2019, reinforces this idea, acknowledging that “each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve ever done” (pp. 17–18). It is incumbent upon us to center this idea in student conduct and conflict management work in our policies, practices, and the companion language used to convey meaning and encourage meaning-making about experiences and institutional expectations. In other words, we cannot expect students to trust the administration of a “restorative” and “developmental” process if the tone set across written, online, and in-person communication is one of authority, punishment, and control. To do this casts conduct and conflict management programs in the same light as criminal justice work, discounts the educational value, and positions the actors on different sides of the resolution process. Taking small thoughtful steps toward broader systemic change can therefore begin in the interpersonal interactions that serve as the basis of adjudication pathways and in assessing the tone and expectations set by the language used across conduct practices, policies, and related publications. We know that student adjudication practices and language modeled after criminal justice in form and function do not serve an inclusive or educational mission. Looking at what we say and how we say it invites deeper dialogue about not only philosophical underpinnings, but also the intent versus impact of our systems of conduct and conflict management. Recognizing dated language helps surface systemic tensions in need of deeper exploration. Authentic inquiry, in turn, can prompt revisions that lead to more inclusive words and language that better express working everyday commitments to justice, fairness, and equity. Those one-on-one conduct meetings that may stir anxiety for students and administrators alike can also make space for cocurricular learning, a sense of community, relationship-building, empowerment, and accountability if we align words and deeds with stated unit and institutional missions that honor inclusive excellence. Turning an inclusive lens on language is more than an exercise in word play. It is a way to notice and account for structural determinism defined as “the idea that our system, by reason of its structure and vocabulary, cannot redress certain types of wrong” (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001, p. 26). We self-limit in ways that take meaningful practices and options off the table with prescribed policies that leave little room for modulation and outcomes that discourage collaboration and restoration in favor of formal third-party impositions. Consider the impact of language and structural determinism on conversations, processes, and outcomes in the composite example in Box 11.1 of the kinds of situations being managed by colleagues with sexual misconduct responsibilities. There are multiple decision points within this generalized case study during which parties, including the complainant, respondent, institution, and other stakeholders, might have impacted the ultimate course of the

252   

pathways within the spectrum model

BOX 11.1.

Case In Point

A student is asked to respond to the Office of Title IX Compliance for a conversation with the coordinator. In this meeting the student learns that another student has shared information that suggests nonconsensual sex took place between the pair, who were dating at the time. The student reporting the incident is considering possible options and makes accommodation requests in writing. The student reported to have initiated nonconsensual sex is receptive to a mutual, non-disciplinary “no contact” directive as the matter proceeds; the reporting student agrees to this as well. Weeks go by with no further communication from or between these students, nor action by the institution. However, the students are both part of a theater group on campus. One is an actor and the other part of the lighting team. They begin to share their individual perspectives on what happened with other cast and crew members in person and in online group chats. Practice, production schedules, and tech needs are disrupted. Students take sides. Some try to investigate the situation in good faith. Others try to solicit evidence against the student accused of initiating sex by encouraging them to apologize, admit they were wrong, and make all necessary concessions in order to avoid an escalated Title IX process. Still more time goes by. Students in the theater group suggest a group meeting to include the two students to resolve the tension, help set things right, and move on. The institution discourages the idea. Tensions increase, accusations are made about breaches to the no-contact directives, and the reporting party asks to escalate the matter as a formal complaint. The reported student is now recast as a respondent in a student sexual misconduct complaint, is assigned a conduct representative for process support, and contacted by an investigator. Similarly, the reporting student is now considered a formal complainant and support is formally offered by a campus advocate. A full investigation follows according to policy. With breaks, class schedules, and administrative lapses, the process takes well over what the students believed was to be a 60-day window for resolution. A voluminous report is generated. The complainant wants to move forward with the process and triggers the most formal adjudication process. The conduct hearing takes several hours and, based on the standard of proof of preponderance of evidence, the respondent is found not responsible. The complainant appeals. The appeal is granted on procedural error and sent back to be heard anew by a different hearing body. A second adjudication process takes several weeks to schedule and another week to occur. The respondent is again found not responsible. The complainant does not submit a second appeal within the prescribed time, concluding the formal institutional process.

off script  

253

sexual harm claim. Some might argue that this course of action seems to satisfy the basics of due process protocol. For many though, it also fails to satisfy across measures that demonstrate an ethic of care, timely responsiveness educational value, community engagement and restoration, or the capacity to inclusively support all parties throughout the resolution process as the situation evolves and needs and interests change. Schrage and Thompson (2009) introduced the term magic real estate to capture the early moments following an incident in which an infinite number of response patterns might be entertained that in turn guide potential outcomes: Magic real estate describes the space between an incident and the selected resolution pathway. Often, it is in this space that the greatest potential exists for use of educational, effective, creative, flexible, restorative, and socially just resolution methods. Here, the incident remains in pure form a simple conflict. No formal set of structures or standards yet exists to restrict the space for the stories of those involved to be shared and honored. The parties are simply individuals in a dispute, rather than complainant and respondent, or accused and victim. (p. 66)

Orienting ourselves to the idea of magic real estate instead of deferring to a prescribed “allegation in–adjudicated resolution out” pattern allows for real-time collaboration, inclusive ongoing dialogue, creative issue identification and situational problem-solving, and a more relational approach to the people who are moved into our systems. Starting from the premise of magic real estate and working within a framework that offers informal to formal adjudicated options as well as de-escalated strategies found along the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) helps make policy and process applications trustworthy, restorative, and inclusive. These things are not just “nice to haves.” Even if adjudication is ultimately the resolution process of choice, a transparent and trustworthy process and just outcomes stand a far better chance of being honored than those perceived to be secretive, prescribed, uncaring, and unjust. As triggers that prompt litigation, none is so great as exclusion and a sense of injustice facilitated by an institution and its agents perceived not to care. If for no other reason, transforming traditional adjudication models and language through a lens of inclusive excellence makes good risk management sense.

Moving Away From Structural Determinism and the Lens of Insubordination Reorienting practices and reframing language away from structural determinism invites a fresh look at the Stoner and Lowery (2004) model code

254 pathways within the spectrum model    still widely referenced as a framework for student conduct policies, practices, and language. New models, interpretations, and hybrid approaches share common ground in the twofold requirements of respecting individuals while protecting the health and welfare of the institution. Nondiscrimination, fairness, and evenhandedness, together with the right of the college to promote educational and behavioral standards, are still central to student conduct and conflict management. As Stoner and Lowery (2004) assert, “Whatever process it adopts, the institution will want to remember the basic student affairs precept that it is important to treat all students with equal care, concern, honor, fairness, and dignity” (p. 15). Their endorsement of conflict resolution, including mediation and restorative justice, has also stood the test of time, although it is often under scrutiny, especially within the context of a sexual misconduct complaint like that in the case study analyzed in Box 11.1. An arbitration or a mediation requirement [may be offered] prior to reaching a more formal Student Conduct Board Hearing stage. Such an option is acceptable because the concept of due process is flexible, requiring no more than is necessary to provide fair notice and an opportunity to be heard. In other words, in some cases a formal fact-finding process is not required; an informal meeting between the students involved and college or university administrators suffices, if Accused Students are informed of the charges and given an opportunity to tell their side of the story. Other schools may not want to require such an initial meeting because such meetings could consume all the administrator’s time with little benefit. Local experience will dictate whether it is effective to attempt to resolve alleged Student Code violations through such a meeting, although the most common practice is to emphasize efforts at mediation or other informal resolution. (pp. 47–48)

Stoner and Lowery (2004), and Stoner and Cerminara (1990) before that, pioneered a model code with suggested applications and language that, while dated, continues to provide foundations for practitioners. Still, administrators have moved beyond the code’s premise that our work is that of keeping a tight reign on student insubordination for the sake of campus efficiency. Rather, through lenses that support overall inclusive excellence, we recognize that higher education’s purpose is to nurture robust student engagement that celebrates and supports all individuals, even when such engagement tests the status quo. Authentically reframing the language used to impart institutional values and operationalize campus expectations of its members helps deconstruct conduct management rooted in authority and power. Words can express the genuine care that conduct administrators and hearing bodies have for individual welfare and community values balanced with necessary process structural

off script  

255

and legal guidance. Table 11.1 shares transferable “Learn the Lingo” content drawn from the Duke University (Glassman, 2019) conduct board training manual that models the way any institution can meaningfully revise, rebrand, and teach traditional student conduct practices in ways that better impart a commitment to inclusive excellence, restorative justice, and educational values. At Duke, this approach further aligns with an institutional commitment to providing “a fair disciplinary process that reflects its educational mission and the Duke Community Standard [the honor code], and to reflect that we are separate from the criminal justice system.” Table 11.1 demonstrates that alignment of student conduct to institutional mission may be reproduced and used as a collaborative exercise toward helping conflict and conduct programs rebrand and teach content that conveys a working commitment to inclusive excellence and restorative, developmental priorities without compromising important procedural safeguards. Changes in language go hand in hand with a full re-evaluation of the institutional capacity and commitment to creating more inclusive, restorative practices. What we say and what we do must line up for systemic integrity and trustworthiness. Even if a conduct system does not yet have the capacity or the institutional culture is not ready to incorporate holistic conflict resolution pathways, a concerted effort to shift conduct language in ways that authentically connote restorative, inclusive, and educational principles and process goals can have a transformative impact on the delivery and perceptions of the disciplinary process and the ways in which students interact with it. Table 11.1 offers vocabulary that can be readily inserted into policies and processes without changing protocol. Each can be tailored to one’s institutional culture and educational needs, including the need to quickly retool approaches and tone to be responsive to emerging situations like that presented when campuses moved quickly from in-person to virtual learning during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic.

A Comparison of Scripts The subtleties of language and what our choice of words implies about a system’s commitment to justice, inclusion, education and restoration, together with procedural safeguards, are demonstrated when we compare a restorative hearing script (Karp, 2014) and a traditional hearing script (Stoner & Lowery, 2004). Individual campuses establish their own policies, protocol, and scripted language in ways that align with the community culture. While we affirm the relevance and role of traditional adjudication pathways, introducing a restorative hearing script invites new inquiry and innovation necessary for systemic affirmation and transformation. Informal and

256   

pathways within the spectrum model

TABLE 11.1

Reframing Resolution Vocabulary Restorative, Educational Language

Explanation

Responsible or not responsible rather than guilty or innocent 

Students are encouraged to accept responsibility for the choices they make and the consequences that result from them. The resolution process is perceived as just. Students do not see themselves as positioned to stand in defense against a charge and to win or lose with a verdict of guilty or innocent by the institution.

Panel rather than jury

Administrative hearings may take place before a panel. Unlike a jury, members of the panel question the respondent directly rather than through prosecutors or lawyers. Panel members also decide whether the respondent is responsible for allegations of misconduct and assign sanctions.

Information rather than evidence

Much of the documentation that is collected through the investigation phase is testimony (e.g., from professors or witnesses) or information gathered from exams or papers.

Sanctions/restorative or educational measures/community actions rather than sentences

A sanction is a consequence that a student receives upon accepting responsibility or being found responsible for violating university policy. The term sentence is not used because it often implies the imposition of imprisonment, a fine, or punishment. Sanctions make space for a student to reflect on past behavior toward making more constructive future decisions while they restore themselves within the community. This makes the process educational and developmental rather than punitive.

Respondent or accused student rather than defendant

The student going through the disciplinary process is responding to the allegation of (a) specific policy violation(s). They are not defending themselves against a plaintiff. (Continues)

off script  

257

Table 11.1  (Continued ) Restorative, Educational Language

Explanation

Complainant/harmed party rather than plaintiff

The complainant is often the person who calls attention to the respondent’s actions. In academic integrity cases, this may be the instructor. In a sexual misconduct case, the complainant may be the alleged victim/ survivor. In some cases, the complainant will not be required to attend the hearing.  

Student conduct and conflict resolution rather than judicial affairs

Campus processes are judicious but not judicial in nature. They center the student and seek to resolve conduct and conflict allegations. They also encourage constructive accountability through education, personal development, and restoring oneself into the community over punishment.

Referral/conduct question rather than charge

A referral or conduct question is the entry point into an inquiry and resolution process. Charge implies an act against a student that the student must defend. Referrals and questions center collaborative, inclusive, and restorative principles.

Administrative meeting/ conference rather than prehearing

A meeting or conference invites a student to tell their story and learn about available resolution processes in a structured yet informal setting. The word prehearing anticipates that a formal hearing will follow before the student is invited to review allegations, ask questions, and share their story. Prehearing prioritizes a legalistic approach to common misconduct that can often be resolved at lower and more effective and educational levels. (Continues)

258   

pathways within the spectrum model

Table 11.1  (Continued ) Restorative, Educational Language

Explanation

Individual and process safeguards rather than appeals

Students (both respondents and complainants), and in some cases reporting parties, are typically afforded the opportunity to have a case and its outcomes reviewed if they believe the resolution process was not followed with integrity or if new information becomes available that did not exist at the time of the decision-making process. Safeguards center the student. Appeals center the process and perpetuate authority, power, and hierarchy in the exercise of justice.

Facilitator rather than hearing officer

The facilitator (as an individual or member of a panel/board) coordinates a process with stakeholders. This role empowers an individual to lead the process and make the decisions. A hearing officer, in a meeting with a student, may not incorporate the perspectives of those community members impacted by the student’s behavior.

Adviser/advocate rather than counsel

Advisers and advocates support students in a conduct process and help empower the student to navigate the process effectively and constructively as they self-advocate. While a student may always seek legal counsel outside the process, counsel implies a level of legal representation not appropriate within an educational and developmental process.

Note. Adapted content borrows from Glassman (2019).

formal adjudication pathways are intentionally placed on the right of the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) as viable structured resolution pathways with procedural safeguards and third-party decision-making to determine responsibility for allegations of misconduct policy violations, especially given a disciplinary record may result. The restorative hearing can approach similar goals in new ways. When delivered effectively, a restorative hearing offers a high-trust and egalitarian approach with just enough facilitated structure and procedural safeguards to honor due process concerns.

off script  

259

Traditional approaches also protect a commitment to procedural due process on a disciplinary framework based on authority and control. The following tables feature two related campus hearing scripts presently in use and premised on two distinct orientations to justice. Table 11.2 introduces two different approaches to convening and opening a student hearing process and helps analyze initial differences in both word choice and orientations to justice. Table 11.3 expands into scripted content related to information-gathering and compares goals of harm identification and violation identification. Table 11.4 demonstrates two versions of decision-making and outcome determination protocol. Table 11.5 concludes the section by unpacking the philosophical underpinnings of model sanctions.

Introduction and Ground Rules The hybrid restorative hearing script presented here incorporates principles and practices found in restorative conferences. For instance, a restorative conference often incorporates two cofacilitators who share responsibility for overseeing the process. They may assess whether a case is appropriate for a restorative conference in which a student has taken responsibility for community harm and meet with participants in advance to prepare them for the conference. Conference participants typically include the student who caused harm (sometimes referred to as an offender who has admitted violating policy), harmed parties (persons who were affected by the incident), and support persons for both the offender and harmed parties. A restorative conference differs from a restorative hearing process in several important ways. A conference is convened when a student has accepted responsibility for allegations and agrees to sit with identified harmed parties, be addressed directly, and be held accountable to their community through a series of questions and answers that invite reflection about how the student’s actions impacted others and how they might repair harm. A restorative hearing may be convened when a student has not taken responsibility for an allegation and identifiers (harmed party, student who has caused harm) are adapted to align with roles of responding and reporting parties and reflect the unanswered question of whether a student has caused harm. A student conduct board process typically consists of a chair who oversees the hearing and uses scripted protocol to help ensure process integrity. Boards commonly include representatives from students, faculty, and/or administration. Using the model code (Stoner & Lowery, 2004) as the framework, a hearing will typically request participation of the student accused of violating a community standard (today an accused student is more commonly referred to as a the student respondent); complainant (the person submitting

260 pathways within the spectrum model    a report or allegation who may be a victim of the offending behavior or a college official); advisers for the accused student respondent and/or complainant, witnesses to the incident; and, in some cases, character witnesses on behalf of the accused student (although this practice has largely been removed or minimized and is not widely in practice anymore). The scripts presented in Table 11.2 introduce the overall tension across measures captured as trust and authority present throughout the process. Here, at the outset, parties are invited to introduce themselves and learn about how each process will unfold while establishing a unique tone and set of expectations. The restorative process introduces the goal of informality and works to create an atmosphere of trust conducive to honest communication, active participation, open dialogue, and personal commitment to change. The traditional script introduces an air of formality that supports a goal of authority and establishes that the process is to be taken seriously. Here, there is concern with order and process. Specific roles and rules for every person in the process are assigned. This script also names potential consequences for violating hearing expectations. In each of the scripted openings, the use of language is telling. TABLE 11.2

Scripted Language Related to Introduction and Ground Rules for Administrative Hearings Restorative Hearing Script (Karp, 2014)

Traditional Hearing Script (Stoner & Lowery, 2004)

Begin recording

Begin recording

Welcome everybody. At this time, I would ask everyone to please silence your cell phones. We will begin today’s hearing by introducing ourselves. I am ________ and I will be facilitating today’s meeting.

Good afternoon, my name is [________], and I will be serving as the chair of the student conduct board. My role is to oversee the student conduct board hearing that will be conducted today. Today’s student conduct board hearing is being tape recorded. This recording represents the sole official verbatim record of the student conduct board hearing and is the property of this institution. At this time, I will ask the members of the student conduct board to introduce themselves.

Thank you all for attending. We are here to evaluate an alleged violation of the student code of conduct. Once we have learned more about what happened, we will decide if there was a violation. If so, we will try to identify who was responsible, what harm was caused, and how it might be repaired.

Would the accused student introduce themselves? Would the accused student’s adviser introduce themselves (if present)? (Continues)

off script  

261

Table 11.2  (Continued ) Restorative Hearing Script (Karp, 2014)

Traditional Hearing Script (Stoner & Lowery, 2004)

One goal of this process is to create an environment in which everyone can speak freely and fully about what happened. As chair, my job is to ensure that everyone here has a voice. Sometimes we will have open dialogue in which everyone can participate as they wish; at other times I will ask specific individuals to speak.

Would the complainant introduce themselves?

We will work to create an environment of trust so that we can speak honestly about the incident. I ask that everyone agree that what is said in this hearing will stay here.

The role of the adviser during this student conduct board hearing is limited. It reflects that this process is not a courtroom proceeding but is part of the institution’s programs that are designed to provide a good living/learning environment for all members of our academic community. An adviser may not question witnesses or make statements before the student conduct board. The only appropriate role for the adviser is to provide advice to the student who has requested their presence in a manner that does not disturb the proceedings of the student conduct board. If an adviser fails to act in accordance with the procedures of the student conduct board, they will be barred from these proceedings.

Does anybody have any questions about the process before we begin? Please feel free to ask at any time.

Would the complainant’s adviser introduce themselves (if present)? Would the individuals who are here today as possible witnesses introduce themselves? If the complainant or the accused student has an adviser, read the following statement.

I would like to remind everyone participating in this student conduct board hearing that falsification, distortion, or misrepresentation before the student conduct board is a violation of the student code. Any person who abuses the student code system in this way may face disciplinary charges for that violation. Witnesses, other than the accused student and the complainant, are present in the student conduct board hearing only while offering their information. (Continues)

262   

pathways within the spectrum model

Table 11.2  (Continued ) Restorative Hearing Script (Karp, 2014)

Traditional Hearing Script (Stoner & Lowery, 2004) Would all witnesses, other than the accused student and the complainant, please leave the student conduct board hearing room and wait outside? You will be asked to reenter the student conduct board hearing to offer your testimony. Before we proceed, are there any questions? The accused student and the complainant may challenge any member of the student conduct board for bias if you believe that they cannot be fair in this student conduct board hearing. Does the accused student wish to challenge any member of the student conduct board for bias? Does the complainant wish to challenge any member of the student conduct board for bias? [If so, the student should be asked to explain what might prevent the member from participating fairly in the student conduct board hearing and the chair may then recess the student conduct board hearing briefly to consider and to decide the challenge.]

The choice of vocabulary in each script establishes the nature of each process and goals of authority and trust. The restorative script introduces proceedings with a (co)facilitated welcome and establishes harm identification and reparation as goals. All parties are reassured and invited to speak freely and have voice in the process, and people over process is the priority lens. The traditional script leads with the chair asserting their voice, establishing roles, naming protocol for audio recording and keeping a verbatim record, and cautioning against falsification, distortion, misrepresentation, and bias lest a person be barred from participating. Procedures are the leading priority focus over people and relationships. While traditional language has changed since the publication of Stoner and Lowery’s (2004) conduct script featured verbatim throughout the provided tables, language in use today has vestiges in accused student, complainant, and witness roles and responsibilities that include providing statements and offering testimony. Each process (restorative and traditional) carries this language forward throughout

off script  

263

the scripts presented across tables. The restorative script incorporates issue identification, dialogue, agreement, trust, and honesty. The traditional script incorporates references to alleged policy and code charges and violations and positions student against institution as they challenge the reported account of misconduct. What we call the traditional script (Stoner & Lowery, 2004) paved the way for some early shifts in language away from legalese used previously in the conduct practices of higher education, asserting that “the practice of calling student discipline proceedings ‘judicial’ . . . [is a] ‘cardinal error’” (p. 15). Still, this dated script conveys procedural authority. Order is maintained by the panel, and terms such as statements, witnesses, and testimony are still quasijudicial. These vestiges are absent from restorative language meant to communicate that the process will be markedly different from a courtroom or judicial-style experience. The tension between authority and trust also shows up in the role of a student conduct board chair and restorative facilitator(s). Chair implies a power differential. The person performing that role maintains structure and control, keeping the hearing on script. Having restorative cofacilitators, on the other hand (preferred to using a single facilitator), suggests that power is distributed, and the emphasis is on facilitating a shared process in which the direction of the process and decision-making will be collaborative and shared with parties including but not limited to the cofacilitators. This egalitarian decision-making model is further implied in the restorative script by assuming all participants are present voluntarily and will remain present throughout the conference. In contrast, role differentiation is emphasized in the student conduct board script by (a) introducing and identifying participants by their position (e.g., accused student or respondent); (b) narrowly prescribing which participants can speak and with whom they may address questions (e.g., the adviser cannot question witnesses or make statements); and (c) excluding participants from the hearing at various points depending on their role. Role differentiation establishes a power structure of authority meant to help ensure that the process will be undertaken efficiently and fairly and participants will have protected speaking time, be constrained to ensure civility and order, and be invited to voice and create a record of any concerns about the process to date, including bias. While this approach also ensures that the power lies primarily with those who are present throughout the entire process—that is, the chair and other board members, who are the only ones to obtain full information and, in the end, make the decisions—it also ensures credible statements by witnesses who provide information informed by their own experience without influence of what they have heard others say in the meeting.

264   

pathways within the spectrum model

The restorative approach invites a more open and even ambiguous process. Roles are not clearly defined, and fewer ground rules are established within a framework that strives to balance a fair process with community engagement. The emphasis is on participation and listening together with information and evidence gathering. All individuals present will have a chance to speak and open dialogue will occur. If the student accepts responsibility of some or all allegations in the process or is found to be responsible to the community for harm, all participants continue to help identify and construct potential outcomes. The restorative script forgoes authority-setting in favor of building an atmosphere of trust, inclusion, and empowerment.

Information Gathering The next stage in both processes is focused on information gathering. The scripts are contrasted in Table 11.3. In the restorative script, the process makes space for narrative accounts by all participants, sharing from their own perspectives what happened and how they were affected. In addition, there is an opportunity for the participants to ask questions of each other and offer reactions to statements others have made. In the more traditional student conduct board script, the accused student accepts or denies responsibility for policy violations and the hearing board evaluates the evidence as it is presented. At this stage, respondents, complainants, and others (except advisers) are treated as witnesses to the incident, all providing information from their perspectives about what happened. They may be asked to make opening statements, and board members may follow up with questions for these participants. Complainants and respondents may ask questions moderated by the board for relevance and propriety. Student conduct boards are convened primarily to determine whether the student is in violation of a campus policy, and the more legalistic structure of the process and language reflects that facts are being discovered carefully and accurately, not unlike the courts. At this stage, the traditional process is concerned not only with authority but also with objectivity and determining, through the presentation of written evidence and oral testimony, what really happened at the incident. The restorative hearing process is also concerned about the facts, although in this process it is common for the student alleged to have caused harm to own some degree of culpability early in the process. In this case, they may wish to be heard by their peers and provide added context about what they did as they accept overall responsibility. The emphasis then becomes one of clarification where the student can voice areas of agreement

off script  

265

TABLE 11.3

Scripted Language Related to Information-Gathering: Harm Identification Versus Violation Identification in Administrative Hearings Restorative Hearing Script (Karp, 2014)

Traditional Hearing Script (Stoner & Lowery, 2004)

To everybody: We will begin with the conduct administrator reviewing the written materials that we have received.

The student conduct board is considering charges, which have been brought against [________], the accused student, by [________], the complainant in today’s student conduct board hearing. Under the student code, [________], the accused student has been charged with the following violations of the student code:

To the board: Do any board members have questions regarding the written materials? Please remember that, at this time, we are focused on determining whether the responding student is in violation of the code of conduct as specified. To responding student: Do you admit violating the student code of conduct? If responding student admits violation: To responding student: Due to your admission, the boards finds you in violation of code of conduct #____. Proceed to harm identification If responding student does not admit violation: To responding student: Please explain what happened from your perspective and why you do not believe you have violated the student code of conduct. If you have prepared a statement, you can read it at this time.

The student conduct board chair reads each of the violations of the student disciplinary code, which the accused student is alleged to have violated. Would the accused student please respond to each of the charges, which I have just read, indicating whether you accept responsibility for violating this provision of the student code? If the accused student does not accept responsibility for violating each of the provisions of the student code listed, then the student conduct board hearing shall proceed. If the accused student does accept responsibility for violating each of the provisions of the student code listed, then the student conduct board hearing shall proceed with the presentation of information limited to that which should be considered in the imposition of sanctions. At this time, we will begin the portion of the student conduct board hearing during which information is presented for consideration in determining if the accused student has or has not violated the student code.

(Continues)

266   

pathways within the spectrum model

Table 11.3  (Continued ) Restorative Hearing Script (Karp, 2014)

Traditional Hearing Script (Stoner & Lowery, 2004)

To responding student, reporting individual, and harmed parties: Do you have any witnesses that will provide us with further insight into the situation?

Witnesses may be asked to swear or affirm to tell the truth at this point if the institution wishes to follow this practice.

To reporting individual, harmed parties and witness(es): Can you please tell us what happened from your perspective?

The complainant and accused student will be provided the opportunity to share introductory remarks, which should not exceed 5 minutes. You are not required to do so. If you have prepared an impact statement in writing or wish to make one orally, you may do so at this time. Are there any questions before we proceed with any introductory remarks?

Invite board to ask questions. Reporting individuals and responding students can also ask questions. When witnesses are done, Would the complainant in this case like to dismiss them. make introductory remarks? If so, please proceed. To resource experts: Please share any relevant Would the accused student in this case like information. to make introductory remarks? If so, please proceed. NOTE: Resource experts may be invited, like witnesses, to provide At this time, the student conduct board pertinent information that would will hear witnesses offer testimony for either help the board make a consideration in determining if the accused determination of responsibility, student has or has not violated the student clarify details of the incident, code. The student conduct board will begin or inform the board about by calling witnesses to present testimony. resources that may help with their After the student conduct board has called sanctioning decision. They should all the witnesses it considers appropriate, be invited in for only the relevant the complainant, followed by the accused portion of the hearing, then student, will be afforded the opportunity to dismissed. call additional witnesses. (Continues)

off script  

267

Table 11.3  (Continued ) Restorative Hearing Script (Karp, 2014)

Traditional Hearing Script (Stoner & Lowery, 2004)

To board: Do you have any questions that will help you determine if the responding student is in violation?

The members of the student conduct board will have the opportunity to question each witness. Witnesses called by the student conduct board may be questioned by the complainant, followed by the accused student, after the student conduct board has concluded its questioning. Witnesses called by the complainant and accused student will be questioned initially by the student conduct board. Following the conclusion of the student conduct board’s questioning, the individual calling the witness will have the opportunity to have questions asked of the witness. Following the conclusion of this questioning, the other individual will have the opportunity to have questions asked of the witness. Before a witness is excused, the chair will ask members of the student conduct board and the complainant and accused student if they have any final questions.

At this point, the facilitator may continue to invite discussion and sharing by all parties until agreement is reached or may invite private deliberation by the board to determine responsibility. Determination is by majority rule. Turn off recorder during deliberation. The script continues as if harm has been determined and accountability is indicated. If harm and accountability are not indicated the conference concludes. To everybody: Now we will identify the impact of the incident. Will one of the board members take notes and list the harms on the board? To responding student: What happened from your perspective? What were you thinking about at the time? What have you thought about since? What impact has this incident had on you? Who else has been impacted and how? What do you think needs to happen to make things right?

All questions by the complainant and accused student of witnesses should be directed to the chair of the student conduct board. Are there any questions before witnesses testify? [Typically, the complainant will be asked to testify first, followed by the accused student, and then other witnesses.] At this time, the board will hear from the complainant. Do the members of the student conduct board have any questions for this witness? After completion of questioning by the student conduct board: (Continues)

268   

pathways within the spectrum model

Table 11.3  (Continued ) Restorative Hearing Script (Karp, 2014)

Traditional Hearing Script (Stoner & Lowery, 2004)

Anything else you would like to say or ask at this time?

Does the complainant wish to provide any additional information to the board?

To harmed parties: What happened from your perspective? What impact has this incident had on you? What has been the hardest thing for you? What do you think needs to happen to make things right? Anything else you would like to say or ask at this time?

Does the accused student have any questions to be directed to the complainant? Please remember to direct your questions to the chair of the student conduct board.

To support persons/advisers: Is there anything you would like to say or ask at this point? To responding student: You have now had a chance to hear about how the incident has affected everyone. Is there anything you would like to say or ask at this time? To everybody: We will now summarize our list of harms by posting them on the board. Is there anything to be changed or added?

At this time, the board will hear from the accused student. Do the members of the student conduct board have any questions for this witness? After completion of questioning by the student conduct board: Does the accused student wish to provide any additional information to the board? Does the complainant have any questions to be directed to the accused student? Please remember to direct your questions to the chair of the student conduct board. After the complainant and the accused student have testified, the following procedures will be followed for additional witnesses called by the student conduct board. The next witness to be called by the student conduct board is [________]. Do the members of the student conduct board have any questions for this witness? After the completion of the questioning by the student conduct board: Does the complainant have any questions for this witness? Please remember to direct your questions to the chair of the student conduct board. (Continues)

off script  

269

Table 11.3  (Continued ) Restorative Hearing Script (Karp, 2014)

Traditional Hearing Script (Stoner & Lowery, 2004) After the completion of questions suggested by the complainant: Does the accused student have any questions for this witness? Please remember to direct your questions to the chair of the student conduct board. After the completion of questions suggested by the accused student: Are there any final questions before this witness is excused? Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in this student conduct board hearing. Your participation is appreciated. Please do not discuss with other potential witnesses the information you have shared with us today. This process is repeated until the student conduct board has called each witness. At this time, the complainant and the accused student will be provided the opportunity to make concluding remarks. You are not required to do so. Are there any questions before we proceed? Would the complainant in this case like to make concluding remarks? If so, please proceed. Would the accused student in this case like to make concluding remarks? If so, please proceed. At this time, we would ask that the complainant, accused student, and their advisers (if any) leave the student conduct board hearing room so that the members of the student conduct board may determine if the accused student is responsible for any of the violations of the student code with (Continues)

270   

pathways within the spectrum model

Table 11.3  (Continued ) Restorative Hearing Script (Karp, 2014)

Traditional Hearing Script (Stoner & Lowery, 2004) which they have been charged. After the determination regarding responsibility is made, you will be asked to return to this room. The student conduct board will announce its decision regarding responsibility. If the accused student is found not responsible concerning all charges, the student conduct board hearing will be adjourned. If the accused student is found responsible concerning any charges, the student conduct board will consider the following additional information related to sanctioning. a. Character witnesses on behalf of the accused student b. Any prior violations of the student code by the accused student c. Recommendations for sanctioning from the complainant and the accused student Turn the tape recorder off. Once the student conduct board has concluded its deliberations concerning responsibility on each alleged violation, the complainant and accused student are called back into the student conduct board hearing.

and concern about one of more allegations, and the focus becomes less on teasing out code nuances and more on addressing overall community harm. In such cases, the restorative hearing process is concerned differently than a traditional hearing process with the subjective experience of stakeholders, especially in identifying how they were impacted by the incident. This takes priority over exhausting the details of every allegation made while still tending to due process parameters. The student conduct hearing board is concerned with not only the question of whether a student violated the code of conduct, but also precisely which code or codes were violated. For instance, a student may be alleged to have violated the alcohol policy, the drugs and drug paraphernalia policy, and the disruptive conduct policies in an incident report. In the case of multiple

off script  

271

allegations, a student may accept responsibility for some, but not all, of the reported behavior. In both cases of single and multiple contested allegations, boards have the responsibility to hear and weigh information to determine if each allegation meets the standard of proof required to determine responsibility. If the standard is not met, the student is found not responsible. If met, the student is found responsible. The restorative hearing process similarly reaches a decision point where a student either accepts responsibility for a community harm or the information shared is determined to establish responsibility, requiring accountability and reparation. The script then pivots based on admitted or established responsibility and the focus becomes that of determining the nature of harm caused by the offending behavior. Facilitators in the restorative hearing process record harms on visible flip chart paper or a whiteboard to support collaborative inquiry with the major goal of educating an offender about the impact and consequences of their behavior on others in the community, something they may have never considered before. The information-gathering stage perpetuates the contrast between authority and trust in other ways, too. Restorative conference facilitators use participants’ names rather than roles (e.g., respondent), signaling that informality and personal recognition are more important than formal role differentiation. Facilitators further invite participants to ask each other questions to establish open communication throughout the process. In the student conduct board hearing, the chair reminds participants to direct their questions through the board to reduce confrontations and conflicts between complainant and respondent. In addition to role differences between facilitators and board chairs, the roles of other participants differ too. In the student conduct board hearing a student alleged to have violated a policy is referred to as the accused student or respondent; that is, they are responding to the allegation. In restorative practices, students also enter the process with roles that might be identified procedurally as respondent (alleged to have caused harm) and reporter or witness (alleged to have been harmed directly or second hand). Still, these roles are less prominent. The focus is on people in the community who may have experienced harm and seek accountability and repair. The term complainant in the student conduct process may mean the person against whom the alleged behavior was committed and can also refer to the person reporting the misconduct such as a faculty member reporting plagiarism or an off-campus neighbor reporting a loud and disruptive student party. In the restorative hearing process, that person may be called a harmed party. If harm has not been established yet, this might be tailored to express alleged harm. The language of campus adjudication draws direct

272 pathways within the spectrum model    lines between respondent/defendant and complainant/plaintiff in the criminal justice system. In both cases, each party is positioned to discredit the other’s perspectives. As noted, the restorative hearing process takes a different approach. The role of the complainant as an alleged harmed party (and often there is often more than one) is to describe how they were impacted by a behavior. Witnesses may attend the restorative process if they are also viewed as harmed parties. Some programs will use the term affected party to help distinguish between primary victims and secondary or less affected victims. If harm is affirmed during the process, language incorporates this to allow parties to own their experience as someone who has caused harm and someone who has been harmed. Another role distinction is that of adviser. In the student conduct hearing board, both complainants and respondents can bring advisers to the hearing, whose role, as instructed in the script, is to provide advice to their student without disrupting proceedings. The adviser role is often filled by an adult member of the community trained in due process requirements. It may also be filled by the student’s legal counsel, especially when the allegations are very serious and the potential consequences include suspension or expulsion from the institution. Systems often liken the role to that of a potted plant (a dismissive term that we do not endorse) in which the adviser is present to listen and quietly counsel a student but not to represent the student or speak on their behalf in any way, lest they be seen as disrupting the process. The metaphor reinforces quite clearly who has a voice and holds authority in leading the process and who does not. In the restorative process, offenders and harmed parties are encouraged to bring support persons whose role is not to offer counsel but to help parties feel more comfortable as they offer their own perspective on the impact of the incident. They do not take over the process and neither are they silenced. One of the most notable distinctions between the restorative and traditional scripts in this stage is the introduction of a private student conduct board deliberation process. In this phase of the student conduct process, all participants are excused except board members so that the board can privately evaluate information gathered and determine if the respondent is responsible for any or all allegations as weighed on the established standard of proof. A second private deliberation follows if or when the board is required to determine sanctions as a result of a responsible finding. Private deliberations are not baked into the restorative hearing process, although the restorative hearing process mirrors mediation practice by offering a private meeting or “caucus” as useful. Caucuses are often introduced if parties seem reluctant to share information for any reason or work against the informal, restorative nature of the process. In these cases, cofacilitators may

off script  

273

need to work with reluctant participants to address concerns or reinforce the voluntary nature of the process and determine if the conference can continue in good faith. While private caucuses and deliberations serve a valid purpose across processes, private deliberations in the student conduct process privilege the board to the exclusion of others so that they may wrestle with information in order to make decisions. This not only perpetuates authority but also works against trust. The responding student, excluded from deliberations, may understandably feel they have been able to respond to all evidence and information used to determine responsibility and sanctions, despite safeguards that require respondents to have full access to presented material considered in deliberation. Restorative justice practitioners believe that keeping all participants present and together throughout the conference increases trust. In the restorative process, each participant stays throughout the full process, is invited to hear and understand all viewpoints without filters, and has input into each decision made. In sum, the informationgathering stage of the more traditional adjudicated process is designed to have assigned parties present and evaluate evidence to determine responsibility. In the tradition of restorative justice, the restorative meeting at this stage seeks to collaboratively identify what harm was caused by a community offense.

Decision-Making About Outcomes After Responsibility Is Determined Table 11.4 introduces the final stages of each process, in which appropriate outcomes and sanctions are determined. As established, the restorative justice conference decision-making process focuses on repairing harm and rebuilding trust whereas the student conduct board hearing is designed to weigh evidence to determine responsibility and then, if appropriate, to assign one or more sanctions. It is in this phase that the board may consider mitigating or aggravating circumstances, a student’s past disciplinary history if one exists, and institutional precedents and published sanction parameters. For the most part though, the use of character witnesses has largely been removed even though it still appears in the scripted conduct language of 2004. Front and center in the restorative process, at this stage, is a reminder that the dual purposes of the restorative process are to identify and repair harm and to restore trust. The facilitator specifically discourages the group from passing judgment about the offender’s character (another good reason to do away with character witnesses in adjudicated processes in favor

274   

pathways within the spectrum model

TABLE 11.4

Scripted Language Related to Decision-Making About Outcomes Restorative Hearing Script (Karp, 2014)

Traditional Hearing Script (Stoner & Lowery, 2004)

To everybody: We have all spoken about the harms caused by this incident and are now at the stage of identifying what can be done to make things right. Two basic questions will guide us forward:

Turn the tape recorder on. This student conduct board hearing is now back in session. The student conduct board has considered the charges against [________], the accused student. The student conduct board has evaluated all the information shared with it and has determined which information was more 1. How can the harm be repaired? credible when the information was in 2. How can we regain confidence conflict. in ______ [responding student] so that we can trust that they Regarding the charge of [________], will be a responsible member the student conduct board finds you [responsible] [not responsible]. of our community? Please remember that our focus is on finding solutions. We are not here to decide if _______ [responding student] is a good or bad person, but to figure out how the harm can be repaired and trust rebuilt. If trust cannot be restored, we may need to consider suspension or expulsion. This next stage is about coming up with ideas. We will write all the suggestions on the board. Later we can decide to make changes and finalize an agreement that is satisfactory to everyone. Ultimately, it is the board’s decision, and if the outcome includes suspension or dismissal, then the dean of student affairs (or dean of faculty in the case of academic violations) will review the case.

Repeat this sentence for each violation of the student code with which the accused student has been charged. If the accused student is found not responsible of all charges, read the following statement: This student conduct board hearing is now concluded. Any further questions regarding the Student Code system or this decision of the student conduct board should be directed to [________]. Questions regarding this case should not be directed to any member of student conduct board. The members of student conduct board are cautioned not to discuss this matter with anyone to respect the privacy of all persons involved. Thank you very much for your participation. [Original content that follows about inviting character witnesses to speak and be questioned has been removed. Most processes no longer include character witness testimony. Instead, some make room for the complainant and respondent to offer oral or written comments for consideration during sanctioning.] (Continues)

off script  

275

Table 11.4  (Continued ) Restorative Hearing Script (Karp, 2014)

Traditional Hearing Script (Stoner & Lowery, 2004)

To conduct administrator: Before moving forward, please let us know if the responding student has had any previous violations of the student code of conduct and if you think their past behavior is relevant to our decision-making here. To responding student (ask only if student has admitted violation): Looking at this list of harms, what do you think can be done to repair them? What else can you do to demonstrate that you can be a positive member of our community? To everybody: Looking at this list harms, what do you think can be done to repair them? What else would you need to see from _______ [responding student] to restore your confidence in them? Do you have any other concerns? To responding student: Would you be able to agree to these suggestions? Do you have any concerns that we should address? To everybody: Does anyone have anything to add?

At this time, we would ask that the complainant, accused student, and their advisers leave the student conduct board hearing room so that the members of the student conduct board may determine the sanctions to be recommended in this case. The student conduct board will now request information regarding the accused student’s prior violations of the student code, if any. Has the accused student been found responsible for violating the student code in any prior incidents? After the student conduct administrator considers the student conduct board’s sanctioning recommendations and determines what sanctions to impose, the accused student and complainant have the opportunity to return to this room. The decision regarding sanctions will be announced. You may choose not to attend the announcement of the sanctions. Regardless, the accused student and complainant (if a student) will receive written notification of the outcome of the student conduct board hearing. (Continues)

276   

pathways within the spectrum model

Table 11.4  (Continued ) Restorative Hearing Script (Karp, 2014)

Traditional Hearing Script (Stoner & Lowery, 2004)

At this point, the facilitator can decide to continue discussion until a consensus is reached. Alternatively, they can call for private deliberation by the board to determine sanctions, especially if suspension is relevant and the participants are having difficulty openly discussing it. Turn off recorder during deliberation.

Turn the tape recorder off. Once the student conduct board has concluded its deliberations the accused student and complainant are called back into the student conduct board hearing. Turn the tape recorder on. This student conduct board hearing is now back in session. The following sanction(s) will be imposed in this case: Read each of the sanctions. This decision may be appealed within 5 working days of receipt of written notification of the decision in this case. Appeals should be made in writing and delivered to [________]. Decisions of the student conduct board and/or the student conduct administrator may be appealed only on the following grounds: a. The original student conduct board hearing was not conducted fairly in light of the charges and information presented and not in conformity with prescribed procedures giving the complainant a reasonable opportunity to prepare and to present information that the student code was violated and giving the accused student a reasonable opportunity to prepare and to present a rebuttal of those allegations. b. The decision reached in this case was not based on substantial information. c. The sanctions were not appropriate for the violation of the student code the accused student was found to have committed. d. New information, sufficient to alter a decision, is now available that was not available to the person appealing at the time of the original student conduct board hearing. For more information, please refer to the Student Code, which is published in the [________]. (Continues)

off script  

277

Table 11.4  (Continued ) Restorative Hearing Script (Karp, 2014)

Traditional Hearing Script (Stoner & Lowery, 2004) Are there any final questions at this time? Any further questions regarding the student code system or this decision of the student conduct board should be directed to [________], the student conduct administrator. Questions regarding this case should not be directed to any member of student conduct board. The members of student conduct board are cautioned not to discuss this matter with anyone to respect the privacy of all persons involved. This student conduct board hearing is now concluded. Thank you very much for your participation. Turn tape recorder off.

of focusing on the deed and not the doer). The incident, rather than the offender, is centered in the circle, meaning that parties focus on the harm caused as viewed from their personal vantage point and that they share how they were affected and offer what they believe needs to happen in order to make things right. Facilitators also seek consent to proceed to emphasize the voluntary nature of the conference and reaffirm the commitment of the offender in taking responsibility for misconduct and harm. Because the decision-­making process is collaborative and inclusive, parties must agree to continue. If not, the conference ends and an adjudication process may be prompted, in which the decision-making authority rests with the board and not with the stakeholders. In the student conduct board process, the introduction of character witnesses has largely been eliminated. Boards are not in the business of judging character. Private impact statements, however, may be introduced by both the respondent and complainant to provide added context when determining sanctions, should the respondent be found responsible. Sanctioning decisions entertain the perceived likelihood that a student may repeat the misconduct in the future and are meant to discourage such recidivism while enforcing community standards and codes of conduct. In the

278 pathways within the spectrum model    restorative justice conference, any concerns about the risk of reoffense are framed in a way that is meant to help identify how the student can demonstrate prosocial behavior moving forward. Like the traditional process, the restorative process does not evaluate character, and they also have access to a record of past misbehavior at this stage of the process. However, rather than presenting this record in private deliberation to help board members shape (an) appropriate sanction(s), the record is entertained in the full circle where the offender and support person may share their perspectives and participants can transparently draw conclusions about the risk of further misconduct. Offenders who are perceived to pose a higher risk will likely need to do more to restore community confidence while meeting sanctions than those who are determined to pose less risk of causing future harm. This final stage in the proceedings recapitulates the contrast between authority and trust across process options. In the traditional student conduct board hearing, private deliberations can reinforce a sense of board authority and compromise trust in the process. The restorative administrative hearing promotes full ongoing collaboration and transparency that builds trust and can lead to shared decisions and outcomes endorsed by all, including, most importantly, the student who caused harm together with those who experienced harm.

Sanctions as a Reflection of Punishment Philosophy Colleges and universities work from a sanctioning framework that reflects a variety of punishment philosophies. Table 11.5 enumerates common sanctions and their descriptions (Stoner & Lowery, 2004) together with the philosophical punishment principle each represents (Braithwaite & Pettit, 1990). Deterrence requires that the punishment should be swift, certain, and severe or painful enough to the offender that it deters the offender as well as others from repeating the violation. Retribution specifies that the punishment should reassure the community that the violation is not tolerated and should be proportionately harsh to offset any benefit accrued by the offending behavior (i.e., “an eye for an eye”). Incapacitation directs that the punishment limit the offender’s ability to repeat the offense. In addition, we add restorative justice as a philosophical category. Restorative sanctions are not assigned as punishment, but such responses are developed and assigned as a way for an offender to repair harm and rebuild trust while being held accountable in their community.

off script  

279

TABLE 11.5

Model Code Sanctions Sanction

Description

Philosophy

Warning

A notice in writing to the student that the student is violating or has violated institutional regulations.

Retribution

Probation

A written reprimand for violation of specified regulations. Probation is for a designated time period and includes the probability of more severe disciplinary sanctions if the student is found to violate any institutional regulation(s) during the probationary period.

Deterrence

Loss of privileges

Denial of specified privileges for a designated time period.

Incapacitation, retribution

Fines

Previously established and published fines may be imposed.

Deterrence, retribution

Restitution

Compensation for loss, damage, or injury. This may take the form of appropriate service and/or monetary or material replacement.

Restoration

Discretionary sanctions

Work assignments, essays, service to the college or university, or other related discretionary assignments.

Restoration

Residence hall suspension

Separation of the student from the Deterrence, residence halls for a definite time period, incapacitation, after which the student is eligible to retribution return. Conditions for readmission may be specified.

Residence hall expulsion

Permanent separation of the student from the residence halls.

College or university suspension

Separation of the student from the Deterrence, college or university for a definite time incapacitation, period, after which the student is eligible retribution to return. Conditions for readmission may be specified.

College or university expulsion

Permanent separation of the student from the college or university.

Deterrence, incapacitation, retribution

Deterrence, incapacitation, retribution (Continues)

280   

pathways within the spectrum model

Table 11.5  (Continued ) Sanction

Description

Philosophy

Revocation of admission and/or degree

Admission to or a degree awarded from the college or university may be revoked for fraud, misrepresentation, or other violation of college or university standards in obtaining the degree, or for other serious violations committed by a student prior to graduation.

Deterrence, incapacitation, retribution

Withholding degree

The college or university may withhold Deterrence, awarding a degree otherwise earned until incapacitation, the completion of the process set forth retribution in this student conduct code, including the completion of all sanctions imposed, if any.

Most sanctions prioritize deterrence, retribution, and/or incapacitation over restoration even when adjudication models endorse education and student development in response to policy violations. So structured, traditional adjudication models across both informal and formal adjudication pathways on the right end of the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) wrestle with structural determinism that triggers punitive sanctions in response to misconduct often at the expense of or in ways that discount more inclusive and restorative responses from foundations in restorative and social justice. Using restorative approaches in the adjudication pathways prioritizes restorative outcomes and discourages more punitive sanctions in ways that align with spectrum model foundation of a social and restorative justice orientation for all pathways. That said, a restorative board may still decide that a sanction like removal from a residence hall is an appropriate outcome if participants are unable to identify actions the offender might take to repair harm and rebuild the trust necessary to return the student to a campus residence. In these cases though, the framing of the sanctioning decision is different. Traditional student conduct boards work with the central question “Is the policy violation, together with any past pattern of behavior, severe enough to warrant suspension?” The restorative board, however, posits, “What would it take for harmed parties to feel okay about the offender remaining in on-campus housing?” The outcome may ultimately be the same across processes; however, the nature of the decision-making related to the sanction is notably different. In a restorative process, all efforts are made to avoid a student’s permanent separation

off script  

281

from a community, be it a residence hall or suspension from the institution altogether. So, while a student in partnership with harmed parties agrees on suspension from residential living or from the institution, whenever possible, the suspended student is also afforded the chance to return. The trustbuilding and reconciliation process rests with the offender, and should they fail to live up to an agreement made in conference to complete all reparative tasks, they self-suspend in perpetuity. Adjudication practices across restorative and traditional programs share the goal of creating an educational non-adversarial disciplinary process. Differences are driven by underlying philosophies in who should maintain control over the process (authority) and how buy-in to the system is achieved (trust). Another difference is orientation around student rights and risk tolerance as programs consider board capacity to deliver fairness and procedural safeguards across structural degrees. The student conduct board hearing approach is available to handle cases in which respondents deny responsibility and to determine if any policy violations have occurred and develop sanctions when appropriate. The restorative administrative board approach is also a viable option in such cases as this process can also determine responsibility in cases where a student does not accept responsibility from the start, but the process still makes space for shared dialogue, inclusion, and a collaborative decision-making process that meets the needs of harmed parties while protecting respondent rights. Ultimately, higher education shares a common set of purposes. These include providing experiences in college meant to challenge, support, and ultimately deliver successful students into the workforce as productive community members, leaders, and lifelong learners. Students enter college with diverse stories, histories, fears, expectations, resources, preparation, and developmental capacity; each of these uniquely impacts subsequent experiences when faced with conflict and conduct that might earn the attention of the institution. It is important that our systems, however tailored to the needs and requirements of each campus, notice and account for these things from foundations of social and restorative justice and through added lenses that enhance overall inclusive conflict excellence.

Investments in Change Management That Net Trustworthy Results There are many potential benefits to refining language and integrating expanded process options alongside adjudication to convey institutional missions of inclusive excellence while managing student conduct and conflict.

282 pathways within the spectrum model    Capacity-building for sustainable systems change requires thoughtful investments of time, resources, staff, training, strategic planning, community engagement, climate assessments, marketing, learning from missteps, celebrating successes, professional development, and ongoing evaluation and resilience. These steps in the systems change process, while aligned with higher education’s overall investment in creating innovative and inclusive communities, still pose unique challenges within hierarchical communities that experience natural cyclic attrition of students and staff. We conclude the chapter with an overview of priority considerations and lessons learned through our own campus, association, and field leadership to lay the groundwork for sustainable adaptations and transformation in student adjudication pathways aligned with higher education values.

Buy-In at All Institutional Levels Infusing new language and expanding process options that encourage paradigm shifts and culture change, all while working within an existing traditional adjudication framework, requires an inclusive plan and input and buy-in from the community. Inclusive excellence requires that all stakeholder perspectives, interests, and needs are solicited, heard, valued, and weighed ongoingly. Prior to discussing enthusiastic implementation steps, including language revisions and expanded process integration, it is important to gain buy-in from senior leaders, resource decision-makers, and risk managers. There are times that leadership will approach conflict and conduct staff with concerns and challenges and trust them to create and propose solutions to resolve issues. Other times, campus leaders may already have a plan of how they want the issue(s) to be resolved and will request that subordinate staff members follow their guidance for resolution and “make it so.” Of the two approaches coming from top-down management, having leadership recognize and initiate a request for change related to a priority issue can make buy-in easier; still, it is up to practitioners to shape and present an informed plan that reflects values that support inclusive excellence. In addition, recommendations for change must also be a two-way process, in which those with student engagement and front-line implementation responsibilities, as well as students and student leaders, also have access to communication lines that allow for requests and recommendations to be raised to a responsive leadership. In all cases, buy-in from leadership requires that they are presented with a clear picture of the working goals related to a change. In the case of introducing change to existing student conduct processes and language, advocates

off script  

283

will need to present the needs, interests, and potential benefits driving the change initiative at multiple levels of the community. This requires that those endorsing change must be fluent not just in the pathways of the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2009) but across the inclusive theories that support the development of all students across identities and support each resolution pathway. Fluency also includes a working knowledge of higher education trends and forecasts; standards and best-practice guidelines; case law, precedents, and legal guidance that impact conduct applications; and K–12 influences, print and online resources, and professional development opportunities that guide, support, test, and inform the field. Advocates for change must further commit to the work of personal growth as it relates to unpacking identity dynamics in order to check preconceptions, triggers, and biases that undermine authentic, inclusive justice initiatives. And, perhaps most important of all, those who are responsible for facilitating and managing change and gaining overall buy-in must assess and appreciate the climate of the campus and the lived experiences of students (and their families) as learners, consumers, and future workforce and community leaders. Building more inclusive, integrated conduct and conflict management practices using the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) are now buoyed by a decade of individual campus-based implementation examples, data collection, and field research shared in this volume. The Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA) notably sponsors annual professional development opportunities designed to inform and support leaders across student conduct, conflict management, restorative justice, and mediation process options. In short, capacity-building and buy-in go hand in hand.

Creating an Implementation Task Force One of the initial steps in envisioning, planning for, and implementing change in existing student conduct models that prioritize adjudication and legalistic language is to form a committee or task force of committed campus partners tasked with identifying how change will serve the overall community and institutional mission. In turn, they may be tasked with crafting, implementing, and evaluating change initiatives once identified and set in motion. This approach is in direct alignment with the approach outlined by Stoner (2000) for developing or reviewing the student conduct process. Stoner (2000) also recommends that a committee composed of members from the community be formed to include key internal and external university stakeholders such as student affairs, residence life, student conduct, athletics, and student body constituents.

284   

pathways within the spectrum model

Whenever new policies and practices are being entertained, it is vital to make dialogue and decision-making accessible to an inclusive team of stakeholders. Having representative voices at the table and making space for all input will facilitate creative problem-solving, buy in, and a more successful implementation process. Creating a diverse group will provide an opportunity to develop an implementation process that serves the whole community. Having a dedicated group of individuals to manage this process will also ensure that the strategic plan does not get left by the wayside. Regularly scheduled meetings and tasks assigned to enthusiastic committee members will be beneficial when taking on a project that requires a shift in justice philosophy. Ultimately, the greatest benefit from the group is that they will be able to craft a road map (short term and long term) for implementation, which will make the process more manageable for all community members involved.

Training Facilitation Once early multilevel buy-in is established and a committee begins its work, considerations can turn to educating and training the community at large about the catalyst for change and need for collaboration and support. As discussed, one of the primary ways to support change is to build individual, unit, division, and institutional capacity to ensure that those implementing changes to existing student conduct and conflict management programs are effectively trained and can adequately and authentically educate others. Training components will consist of sessions and resources designed to provide both an overview of the spectrum model approach (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) and how its foundations in restorative justice and social justice fit within the culture of the community. More detailed training can also evolve to include deconstructing the model to explore each resolution pathway along the continuum and train facilitators, intake staff, board members, and other stakeholders with facilitation and administrative responsibilities in existing adjudication processes. Ideally, the training process may also include visiting and communicating with other institutions that have already implemented change and have experiences and data to share. In a similar vein, training can be led by internal or external facilitators as the budget allows. Inviting a veteran practitioner to provide consultation and training has the advantage of putting lived experiences in front of campus stakeholders entering the process of change to answer questions and authentically engage participants with firsthand lessons, implementation case studies, cautionary tales, and success stories. Crafting effective training and education is critical to effective implementation efforts that align with the spectrum model pathways and foundations

off script  

285

(Schrage & Thompson, 2008), even while working within existing adjudication-only models. Individuals invested in traditional practices can still buy in and become change agents when supported by training and resource shares that build conflict capacity across pathways and deepen awareness related to how expanded options serve institutional diversity, inclusion, and educational missions. Stakeholders with direct process implementation and advocacy roles will feel more empowered and bought in to change the more they are included and informed about the reasons change reflects institutional values, goals, and mission. The absence of an enthusiastic, competent, and engaged stakeholder group needed to champion change is the fastest way to lose support from leadership and members of the community.

The Goal Identification and Implementation Phase Once buy-in to initiate change is established with leaders, the community, and professional peers; the committee/task force has been established; and training has been facilitated, the focus shifts to the process of goal definition and strategic implementation. Campuses looking to embrace a fuller spectrum approach will entertain goals of expanding process options; integrating language that is more restorative and developmental (non-legalistic); and deepening guiding principles, termed inclusive excellence, that allow for authentic implementation. Necessary at this stage is a thorough review of current policies and procedures to assess current alignment with the philosophical underpinnings of the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008). This examination should include a review of the overall language used (policies, communications from and about the office, outcome letters, meeting request letter, and data management platforms such as Maxient) to educate and inform the community about student conduct and conflict management. It is extremely important that the language used across practices and into the community through training, correspondence, data shares, and so on consistently reflect values embedded within the spectrum model approach. It is also important that language meant to embody restorative and inclusive aims is infused into the day-to-day work performed by hearing officers, boards, and staff. Small cultural shifts that impact climate with the tone and turn of a phrase can be implemented well before the full spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) is engaged, so long as it is done in context to authentic restorative and social justice goals. Small shifts can impact not only the receipt and administration of conflict- and conduct-related reports but also the sanctioning process. Table 11.5 is a great way to raise awareness and dialogue about the philosophy behind approaches to sanctioning students when they are responsible for violations of community expectations. Even if

286 pathways within the spectrum model    traditional, more punitive sanction precedents continue, small meaningful gains can be made by adding outcomes that also support intentional restorative and developmental ideals. Similarly, while the goal may include systemic change within the community at large, there can be immediate gains and supportive value in piloting change with representative community subgroups such as athletic teams, fraternities and sororities, student organizations, and so on. Campuses with residential populations may be uniquely positioned to implement targeted incremental change, as residence halls often generate a large percentage of campus care and incident reports that require attention. In addition, capitalizing on residence life’s focus of community building offers a prime opportunity to resolve conflict among residents in less formal and more restorative ways than adjudication to help community members understand how to repair harm after it has been perpetrated on others and the community. As a result, institutions may choose to identify lower-level policy violations (e.g., visitation policies, noise violations, damage to property, etc.) that might consistently be resolved utilizing less formal, more restorative process options along the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008). Beyond identifying a targeted community group to pilot conduct and conflict management-related change, the committee/task force should develop a long-term strategic plan designed to provide guidance on how the model will grow within the department, and later the institution. This overview of change management considerations complements other capacity-building and change-related guidelines offered in this publication and will add to a working road map for a task force, community, and institution. Developing a long-term plan to sustain an investment in change will also require that the committee continue to convene to ensure that the goals of the plan are being tended to, met, and evaluated.

Conclusion In this chapter, we revisit informal and formal adjudication pathways for determining responsibility and outcomes for student conduct policy violations and community harm and introduce ways to work within existing due process–informed pathways while balancing educational, developmental, restorative, and inclusively excellent opportunities. Conduct pathways, including the less formal agreement process and the more formal hearing process, are mainstays in managing campus misconduct. They have further informed sexual misconduct investigation and adjudication protocol. These conventional resolution methods are situationally appropriate, as are less

off script  

287

formal and more collaborative pathways along a fully integrated system of conflict and conduct management meant to be responsive to needs of diverse student learners. Traditional disciplinary processes include educational components and often make space for meaningful student/staff dialogue. They also reflect a priority orientation to authority and punitive philosophies that are often in tension with philosophical orientations that prioritize trustbuilding and community empowerment. In a systemic haste to document and respond to issues on campus, a roommate conflict may be escalated into an adjudication pathway as disruptive conduct rather than used to facilitate dialogue and shared agreement. A student group sponsors a party that encourages cultural stereotypes and triggers a formal board hearing in place of a robust community dialogue about free speech and community harm. A sexual misconduct survivor feels compelled to enter a formal investigation and adjudication process that may further their loss of agency. Adjudication pathways expanded across the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) to include less formal process options help mitigate unintended structurally determined consequences by offering added party-driven responses to relational conflict and conduct issues. In addition, expanded integrated process options up to and including appropriately responsive and restorative adjudication pathways with due process hallmarks signal a campus cultural commitment to inclusive conflict excellence. Adjudication pathways in this context are an extension of rather than in competition with a community’s investment in social, restorative, transformative, and procedural justice. Between the decade that spans the first and second edition, Maslow’s hammer metaphor introduced at the start of this chapter still applies. Now more than ever, campus administrators have the opportunity and responsibility to wield more than a systemic hammer in response to conduct and conflict issues experienced by diverse learners. The so-called hammer still belongs in the administrative toolbox, to be used with care and good intent, so long as it keeps company with other precision tools useful across situations. In the absence of these things, a hammer, like a singular set of formal adjudication options, can be overused and perpetuate problematic principles of power and control in the exercise of justice on campus.

Summary Colleges and universities have shifted the way they facilitate student conduct processes. Since the release of the original spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008), there has been an increased focus on informal, interestbased processes instead of or in tandem with the rights-based adjudicated

288 pathways within the spectrum model    approach and script presented in the model student conduct code (Stoner & Lowery, 2004). Engaging students with a multitude of resolution options across dialogue, conflict coaching, mediation, and shuttle-style diplomacy pathways in addition to innovative informal and formal adjudication processes signals a systemic readiness to manage and resolve campus issues in ways that center the student and are responsive to their identities, stories, and unique needs and interests. In this chapter, we affirm the relevance and role of the adjudication pathways for discipline policy allegations requiring a third-party to determine whether a violation occurred. We offer a restorative hearing process as a viable adjudication pathway and directly comparable to a traditional board hearing. We also contrast the aims of a traditional board hearing with restorative goals and challenge further inquiry and innovation. At its core, the mission of colleges and universities is to educate diverse student learners. This mandate crosses academic and extracurricular experiences and must be reflected in strategic plans, mission statements, and policies across functional areas. Using the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) to transform adjudication processes into integrated systems of conflict resolution and management is wholly consistent with inclusive excellence across lenses of procedural, social, restorative, and transformation justice. This transformation requires strategic leadership and inclusive stakeholder investments so that meaningful and responsive adjudication pathways share space with other integrated conflict resolution pathways and that all exemplify a core cultural commitment to justice, community, and education. These systems must be shaped with rather than for community stakeholders so that together campus partners can inform and sustain innovation while facilitating ongoing buy-in, implementation, training, and evaluation.

Questions for Reflection and Dialogue 1. Does the language used in your conduct related processes and procedures act to create a trustworthy and inclusive environment where all students stand to feel equally supported? How do you know? 2. Schrage and Thompson (2008) intentionally placed adjudication on the spectrum model menu of options to affirm the value of and need for structured pathways with procedural safeguards and third-party decision-making to determine responsibility for allegations of misconduct policy violations, especially given a disciplinary record may result. In this chapter, a hybrid scripted restorative hearing process is

off script  

289

offered alongside the traditional conduct process script for consideration. What are the possible risks and benefits of working to shift the paradigm from traditional to restorative language and protocol in student conduct practice? 3. In this chapter, informal and formal adjudication pathways are compared with a hybrid restorative hearing process, each with distinct language and goals. When might a restorative hearing process be an appropriate pathway to offer students, and what factors might influence a decision to adopt a traditional formal adjudication process? Discuss the value and challenges of offering students a choice between a restorative hearing and a traditional hearing option for adjudicating an allegation of misconduct. 4. What components of the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) are already utilized in your community formally and informally? How can these existing practices and stakeholders be maximized to inform and transform traditional adjudication pathways in ways that more robustly support and integrate foundations of restorative and social justice while maintaining community commitments to procedural safeguards and risk management? 5. In societies with a deep restorative justice tradition and cultural orientation (e.g., the Navajo Nation of the American Southwest and Māori communities of New Zealand), the systems in place to address harmful behavior encourage and support processes that focus entirely on the harm caused (not naming a legal violation or requiring a ­criminal record). Is it possible to imagine a cultural shift in the United States wherein educational communities would be encouraged and supported in using an approach that focused entirely on harm and removed institutional policy, conduct code violations, and discipline records from student conduct response systems? Why? Why not? How is U.S. culture moving toward or away from this potential horizon? 6. Outline and discuss a serious campus incident from your experience or in the news that includes issues that lend themselves to a restorative hearing process fundamentally designed to help build trust while identifying and repairing community harm over a traditional conduct process fundamentally designed to exercise authority while identifying and responding to possible rule-breaking. How might the dialogue and outcome differ across processes? The matrix shared at the end of chapter 1 (Table 1.1) is useful to expand this exercise beyond procedural and restorative considerations.

290   

pathways within the spectrum model

7. Is there room in higher education for integrated expressions of social, restorative, transformative, and procedural justice within a framework of what Giacomini and Schrage term inclusive conflict excellence? What exists to support the vision? What is in the way of transformation? What lessons might be gleaned from the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic response and need to retool language and processes in real time to demonstrate individual and community care and responsiveness within the bounds of existing protocol?

References Ali, R. (2011, April 4). Dear colleague letter. U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. Barton, C. (2003). Restorative justice: The empowerment model. Federation Press. Block, P. (2018). The structure of belonging (2nd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Braithwaite, J., & Pettit, P. (1990). Not just deserts: A republican theory of criminal justice. Clarendon. Crossley, N. (2008). Social networks and student activism: On the politicising effect of campus connections. The Sociological Review, 56(1), 18–38. https://doi .org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2008.00775.x Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2019). CAS professional standards for higher education (10th ed.). Author. Dannells, M. (1997). From discipline to development. Clearinghouse on Higher Education. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York University Press. Glassman, V. (2019). Duke University Undergraduate Conduct Board reference manual. Unpublished. Jason, Z. (2018). A look back at the history of student activism and whether today’s protesters are making a difference. Harvard Ed. Magazine. https://www.gse .harvard.edu/news/ed/18/08/student-activism-20 Karp, D. R. (2009). Reading the scripts: Balancing authority and social support in the restorative justice conference and the student conduct hearing board. In J. M. Schrage & N. G. Giacomini (Eds.) Reframing campus conflict: Student conduct practice through a social justice lens (pp. 140–154). Stylus. Karp, D. R. (2014). Restorative hearing script. University of San Diego Center for Restorative Justice. Maslow, A. H. (1966). The psychology of science: A reconnaissance. Harper & Row. Miller, N. P. (2018). Dear colleagues: Examining the impact of Title IX regulation, investigation, and public scrutiny on higher education administrators (Doctoral ­dissertation). ProQuest (UMI 10829152)

off script  

291

Pedris, L. (2018, March 27). To understand the rise of campus activism, listen to these students. Aspen Institute. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/understanding -rise-student-activism-college-campuses/ Schrage, J. M., & Thompson, M. C. (2008, June). Using a social justice model for conflict resolution to ensure access for all students. Paper presented at the Donald D. Gehring Academy for Student Conduct Administration, Salt Lake City, UT. Schrage, J. M., & Thompson, M. C. (2009). Providing a spectrum of resolution options. In J. M. Schrage & N. G. Giacomini (Eds.), Reframing campus conflict: Student conduct practice through a social justice lens (pp. 65–84). Stylus. Stevenson, B. (2014). Just mercy: A story of justice and redemption. Spiegel & Grau. Stoner, E. N. (2000). Reviewing your student discipline policy: A project worth the investment. United Educators. Stoner, E. N., & Cerminara, K. L. (1990). Harnessing the spirit of insubordination: A model student disciplinary code. Journal of College and University Law, 17(2), 89–121. Stoner, E. N., & Lowery, J. W. (2004). Navigating past the “spirit of insubordination”: A twenty-first century model student conduct code with a model hearing script. Journal of College and University Law, 31(1), 1–77. Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (2013). Pub. L. No. 113-4, 127 Stat. 54. Zehr, H. (1990). Changing lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice. Herald Press.

PA RT T H R E E S U S TA I N A B L E I N N O VAT I O N A N D T R A N S F O R M AT I O N

12 C U LT U R A L R E S P O N S I V E N E S S IN STUDENT CONDUCT AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION ASSESSMENT Erik Wessel and Amanda Karel Inclusion is not bringing people into what already exists; it is making a new space, a better space for everyone. – George Dei, Professor, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (anti-racist education expert)

Introduction The value of conduct and conflict resolution resources on university campuses is well established by vast anecdotal experiences and strongly held firsthand accounts by practitioners and users alike. However, in a data-driven landscape, a sustainable perception of how important integrated conflict management processes are to the overall function of an institution remains uneven, as does the recognition of the value added to students’ learning and development. Establishing unambiguous and measurable outcomes for student learning is a hallmark of good student development work, and yet measuring achievement of outcomes is often elusive. Furthermore, the establishment of outcomes that draw on critical elements of diversity, equity, and inclusion are even more uncommon. This chapter will explore data-driven assessment and decision-making options while pulling in essential components from the growing scholarship and critical lens of inclusive excellence. The values we hold as a community are unique to each individual and cultural experience. The policies we create are, ideally, deeply rooted in 295

296 sustainable innovation and transformation    these collective values. The processes we enact, at their best, should undergird these values and seek the change, continual renewal, and transformation of our shared community experience through the development and growth of individual members. And yet, we regularly hear from students holding minoritized identities the same discontent stemming from experiences of indignities and the perpetual existence of a climate hostile to their equitable opportunity for educational success. We, therefore, must make an honest assessment of our efforts to ensure equitable and inclusive environments and commit to make changes where we find well-meaning systems that do not produce the efforts and outcomes all our students need to be successful across all learning platforms. In 1996 the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE; Suskie, 2000) advanced nine principles of good practice for assessing student learning. The nine values-based principles are summarized and expanded here as a foundational framework for a broader assessment approach with attention given to cultural complexity in higher education communities: Principle 1: Start with the foundation of educational values. Principle 2: Assessment is multidimensional, integrated, and revealed in performance over time. Principle 3: Programs assessed have clear, explicitly stated purposes. Principle 4: Equal attention is given to outcomes and experiences, which lead to those outcomes. Principle 5: Assessment is ongoing, not episodic—mindful of everchanging student culture and social context. Principle 6: Assessment is inclusive of representatives across educational community. Principle 7: Assessment illuminates questions important to the community. Principle 8: Assessment is part of larger set of conditions that promote change. Principle 9: Approach is accountable to ensure effective benefit for students, community, and society. These are sound practices/principles that have “stood the test of time” (Hutchings et al., 2012, para. 1); however, layering on the lens of equity provides opportunities to enhance inclusivity and reconceptualize these principles to ensure that attention is also given to the realities of difference that exist within our communities. In addition, we suggest an additional principle to give intentional focus to issues of equity:

cultural responsiveness in student conduct  

297

Principle 10: Approach is sensitive to the variation of needs across difference. To achieve each of these principles throughout our shared experience with students of varying backgrounds and experiences on our respective campuses requires a multi-tiered and mixed methods approach. We now turn to elucidating a vision for accomplishing this work through an inclusive excellence framework.

Envisioning an Assessment Strategy Built on Inclusive Excellence Before we can begin building a framework for culturally sensitive assessment rooted in inclusive excellence, we need to build a more sophisticated understanding of the questions framed by the cornerstones of diversity, equity, and inclusion. D-L Stewart’s (2017) important essay in Inside Higher Ed argues for “transformative efforts to promote equity and justice” (para. 1) and outlines the rhetorical questions inherent in the frames of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Stewart noted that diversity asks “Who’s in the room?” (para. 19) while equity wants to know “Who is trying to get in the room but can’t?” (para. 19). Further, inclusion is concerned with raising all voices to be heard. Justice asks us to recognize that centering a “majority” perspective can undercut trust even when we have considered who is in the room, who needs to be let into the room, and whose voices are ultimately heard in the room. As we build an assessment model with attention to diversity, equity, and inclusion, we offer the following inclusive learning matrix to guide our shared work. For the purposes of this chapter, we adopt the “inclusive excellence” framework as a transformative lens through which to approach assessment. Inclusive excellence takes its cues from the four primary elements outlined in the AAC&U’s (Williams et al., 2005) Toward a Model of Inclusive Excellence and Change in Postsecondary Institutions: 1. Focus on student intellectual and social development, offering the best possible opportunities for learning within the institutional educational context 2. Purposeful development and utilization of organizational resources to enhance student learning, establishing an environment that challenges each student to achieve at high levels and each member of the campus to contribute to learning and knowledge development 3. Attention to the cultural differences learners bring to the educational experience and that enhance the enterprise

298   

sustainable innovation and transformation

4. Welcoming community that engages all its diversity in the service of student and organizational learning Overlaying these four principles of inclusive excellence provides a clear nexus to established assessment best practices. Focus on social and intellectual development is wrapped up in the education values we hold and requires multidimensional and integrated approaches. Purposeful utilization of organizational resources needs to be directed to those educational offerings that have clear purposes and attend equally to outcomes and experiences. Attending to cultural difference in assessing educational offerings necessitates ongoing approaches and inclusive representation across the educational community. And lastly, the furthering of a welcoming community that engages diversity in service of student and organizational learning includes exploring the questions of greatest importance to the community itself, is accountable to the community in this way, and is in service of broader community efforts to seek increasingly inclusive change.

Expanding Community by Answering Meaningful Questions Via Assessment To conceptualize assessment through the lens of inclusive excellence challenges us to examine and reinterpret the nine AAHE principles of good practice for assessing student learning. Two such principles enhanced by interpretation through the lens of inclusive excellence are principles 6 and 7, which argue that “assessment fosters wider improvement when representatives from across the educational community are involved” (AAHE, 1996, para. 6) and encourages the pursuit of questions that people care about (principle 7). The authors focused on the need for all members of the campus community—faculty, staff, and students—to actively engage in assessment because assessment is a collaborative activity and to improve student learning the ideas of all people engaged in the learning enterprise are required. This principle, through the lens of inclusive excellence, could then be extended to argue for diverse participant representation in the assessment process. As assessment results can potentially capture and reify the dominant narrative(s) on campus, actively seeking out the voices, perspectives, and experiences of marginalized communities can lead to the identification of new issues, opportunities, and challenges. This extension of the sixth principle also calls on staff and faculty engaged in assessment to reconceptualize students’ role in assessment. Rather than simply thinking of students as respondents to a survey, producers of artifacts, or

cultural responsiveness in student conduct  

299

participants in a focus group, we must conceptualize students as partners in the assessment cycle—knowledgeable members of the educational community who can identify meaningful questions or areas for assessment, contextualize or give meaning to assessment results, and identify ways for utilizing the results from assessments. Critically examining students’ role in assessment and the diversity of the stakeholders and people engaged in the assessments can further the pursuit of questions that all campus community members care about (i.e., AAHE principle 7), the consideration of assessment results in a nuanced and holistic manner, and the generation of creative approaches to addressing findings. This is especially true as we pivot from a crisis to change-management response in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and make room for inclusive, strategic, and sustained learning; innovation; and collaboration. The data collected in response to the questions posed will largely depend on institutional and cultural context. There is no one-size-fits-all rubric for understanding the questions that need answers. However, for most institutional contexts the resulting exploration will gather data in four areas: participation, satisfaction, productivity, and student learning outcomes. Inquiries into participation tend to focus on two questions: Who accessed services/attended programming? Who did not access services/ attended programming? Understanding key characteristics (e.g., demographic profile, academic experiences) of who is and is not engaging with conduct and conflict resolution resources can give insight into the relevance of current offerings to meeting actual student needs and/or where outreach and education about opportunities are needed. When possible, it is also key for conduct and conflict resolution offices to track both duplicated and ­unduplicated participation rates. This enables offices to better understand the depth of students’ engagement with opportunities by showing both the total number of touchpoints with students during a designated span of time and how many different students overall were served during that time. For example, an office may have 50 conflict coaching sessions during an academic year (duplicated participation rate) with 45 different students (unduplicated participation rate). Looking at this data in combination shows not only how frequently conflict coaching occurred but also that several students participated multiple times. Better understanding the student’s perceptions with a service or program is important to better understanding the student experience. While “satisfaction” (e.g., this experience made me happy) is not always the desired outcome for conduct and conflict resolution programming or services, understanding students’ experience during their time with us is valuable. Asking students questions such as “Did you feel supported during this experience?” or “Please

300 sustainable innovation and transformation    rate your level of understanding of your responsibilities in this process” can help identify aspects of the student experience that could be modified or should be continued to better position all participants to engage in highquality learning. Productivity data, or business metrics, can be valuable in quantifying aspects of the student experience (e.g., time to case resolution) and articulating the inputs into the development and implementation of conduct and conflict resolution services and experiences (e.g., number of staff involved, number of hours in development, cost to implement a service). Understanding the inputs required to implement and sustain our services, resources, and experiences gives valuable contextual information when considering the results of our assessments. Focusing on student learning outcomes (SLOs), that is, examining the extent to which students progressed on learning-identified areas of knowledge or skills or developing specific habits of mind over the course of an experience, enables a deeper understanding of how conduct and conflict resolution experiences contribute to the learning mission of our institutions. The opportunities for student learning by engaging with conduct and conflict resolution services are numerous, including but not limited to critical thinking, problem-solving, perspective-taking, communication skills, teamwork, leadership, ethical decision-making, professionalism, intercultural communication, conflict management/resolution, techniques to repair harm, and restorative justice approaches. Identifying the key SLOs for the office that offers conduct and conflict resolution experiences; specifying where these outcomes are introduced to students, reinforced to students, and assessed across programming and services; and examining the extent to which students achieve these SLOs can help offices better understand their curriculum and identify meaningful experiences for continuation, areas for strengthening, and opportunities for innovation. Each of these data points from faculty, staff, and students can provide insight into questions these groups find meaningful. However, they are best considered in combination as each brings different issues and questions to light. Looking at SLO data and seeing significant growth in key areas of learning can be invigorating. However, if the number of students who accessed the experience or how much time and expense was related to the experience are not considered, we would be under-informed in any recommendation to try to increase the scale of an experience. This is not to say that productivity, participation, satisfaction, and SLO data are the only data sources that are meaningful during the assessment process. Other information, when available, such as climate data about the institution, can add additional clarity and improve understanding about assessment results.

cultural responsiveness in student conduct  

301

Toward a Culturally Responsive Assessment Model for Conduct and Conflict Resolution in Higher Education: An Assessment Overlay of an Inclusive Excellence Model Williams et al. (2005) offer an inclusive excellence “scorecard” framework for enacting and assessing culturally responsive efforts toward community change. This scorecard is built on a cardinal directional model, which includes access and equity, diversity in the curriculum, learning and development, and campus climate as its four points. In this section we provide an adapted framework based on this scorecard model. We then expand this model with an assessment overlay for conduct and conflict resolution work in higher education. Finally, we offer a companion multidimensional model for building culturally responsive assessment strategies in conduct and conflict resolution work that is adapted from the University of Michigan’s (n.d.) organizational learning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) lifelong learning model. Figure 12.1 offers an adapted framework for conceptualizing conduct and conflict resolution through a lens of inclusive excellence. In the Figure 12.1.  Multidimensional inclusive learning assessment model: Assessing conduct and conflict resolution experiences through an inclusive excellence lens.

Leadership and accountability

Climate

Building capacity

Access and equity

Inclusive Excellence

Learning and development

Note. Figure borrows visually and conceptually from Williams et al. (2005).

Vision and buy-in

Diversity in process

Leveraging resources

302 sustainable innovation and transformation    framework there are four primary areas of critical focus. These serve as a “north star” for building our assessment strategy. The petals in between the primary concepts, in similar fashion to the Inclusive Excellence Scorecard, serve as metaphorical “levers for enacting change” (Williams et al., 2005). In Figure 12.2, an expanded conceptual framework for inclusive excellence has been crafted with an overlay of assessment for conduct and conflict resolution. The four areas of focus remain, yet the intent is to delve a layer deeper and extrapolate the concepts to broader conduct and conflict resolution work in educational communities. The “equity” area (on the northern quadrant) drills down to explore the depths to which due process is equitably applied and access to transformational facilitated conflict engagement and education services are provided. Insight into this area can be gained through consideration of productivity, satisfaction, and participation data. The “diversity” area seeks to recognize and understand the degree of engagement across all forms of difference that are afforded through institutional processes. Close examination of participation data can improve our Figure 12.2.  Expanded inclusive excellence assessment framework. EQUITY

Equitable due process, access to services and resources

Mixed methodological collection of student reflections on inclusive learning objectives

Identify existing infrastructure and talent

Shared vision for process

Inclusive Excellence

Racial and ethnic diversity engagement

Perspective taking, intergroup understanding, conflict normalization, expansion of global civic interest

Time, talent, funding

DEVELOPMENT Note. Figure borrows visually and conceptually from Williams et al. (2005).

DIVERSITY

CLIMATE

Informed and engaged leadership

cultural responsiveness in student conduct  

303

understanding of diversity. “Development” explores the critical learning priorities of perspective-taking, intergroup communication and understanding, the normalization of conflict as a transformational opportunity, and the overall expansion of one’s social global civic and democratic interests—particularly with an orientation toward justice. These ideas are frequently articulated as learning outcomes for students in our offices, and their progress on these SLOs during their time with us provides us with insight into development. And finally, “climate”—which is the intentional collection of data that most effectively describes the current state of the student experience (i.e., satisfaction data)—spurs us on to enhance equity and opportunity, requires us to provide increasingly inclusive opportunities for engagement across difference, and motivates progress toward better mechanisms for enhancing student development.

Multidimensional Inclusive Assessment Model Drawing from the framework outlined in Figures 12.1 and 12.2, the multidimensional inclusive assessment model outlined in Figure 12.3 provides one such culturally responsive strategy for designing policy, procedure, programming, and comprehensive assessment. Policies, procedures, programming, and assessments informed by this model take into consideration each of the columns in the figure: Values: Culturally responsive approaches should embrace, explore, evaluate, and evolve the values that are both collectively held as a community and individually held as members of the community. When assessing the influence of conduct and conflict resolution work on your campus, ask “Do students have equitable opportunity to explore their own values and consider the degree to which their values are inclusive of other’s experience?”

Figure 12.3.  Multidimensional inclusive assessment model. VALUES

IDENTITY

DIFFERENCE

RECIPROCITY

RELATIONAL

TRANSFORM

Evaluates currently held values; formulates increasingly inclusive values

Mindful of salient identities of self and others

Recognizes intercultural difference; exhibits intercultural responsiveness

Listens for shared interests; seeks mutual benefit; incorporates diverse perspectives

Demonstrates empathy; intentionally builds healthy relationships; challenges harmful behaviors

Ability to build understanding and opportunity through experiences of conflict

Note. Adapted from University of Michigan. (n.d.).

304 sustainable innovation and transformation    Identity: Culturally responsive approaches should strengthen students’ ability to identify their own salient identities as well as explore difference across identities and understand the intersectionality of multidimensional identity and conflict. Culturally responsive conduct and conflict work holds space to assess its ability to be a full partner with identity-based student support units in building allies for positive and constructive social change. Difference: The ability to recognize and reinforce the importance and value of difference in community is a foundational learning outcome that should permeate conduct and conflict resolution work. Starting with moving beyond recognition to responsiveness across difference is of utmost importance in today’s society. Building intercultural responsiveness, which has been described as “the merging of multicultural awareness [with] intercultural sensitivity” (Jones et al., 2017, p. 8), becomes a necessary cornerstone of both a liberal education, educational conduct outcomes, and learning through experiences of conflict. Reciprocity: The ability to effectively engage in the exchange of information, ideas, feelings, and meaning, both verbally and nonverbally, requires skills that are developed and honed over the course of a lifetime. They are, however, not often taught with any level of intentionality within academic curricula. As learning processes, both proactive and reactive conflict learning experiences should assess the development of participant’s ability to explore and integrate shared interests in the course of a dialogic process. Further, assessing the enhancement of one’s ability to evaluate, and perhaps incorporate, divergent viewpoints and perspectives is also an important area for exploration. Relational: In this model we talk about the relational as, in part, one’s ability to engage with a baseline of empathy for the other. This is, however, not unbridled empathy. Empathy, for some, can intentionally or unintentionally take on an air of tribalism. This is the exact opposite of what we would hope for our learning experiences. Rather, what we would seek to assess is the ability to engage across difference with interest, humility, and empathy. Transform: To adopt a fundamental reframe for conflict that understands it as opportunity to create “constructive change processes which increase justice and reduce violence” (Lederach, 2003, p. 22) is to unlearn perhaps decades of societal conditioning, which causes us to see conflict as destructive instead of constructive. Assessing one’s ability to adopt a more complex, nuanced, and constructive disposition on conflict is an important outcome that has the power to produce community- and societal-level change.

cultural responsiveness in student conduct  

305

Conclusion The multidimensional inclusive assessment model seeks to help practitioners adopt an orientation to assessment in keeping with Stitt-Bergh et al.’s (2019) call for innovative approaches to assessment that focus on fostering students’ cognitive and affective learning. When this learning orientation to assessment is embraced, assessment can become a tool for equity by investigating learning, identifying inequities among groups of students, and planning and implementing changes to educational opportunities to facilitate high-quality learning for all students. The multidimensional inclusive assessment model is designed to provide practitioners with practical guiding questions and points of consideration that enable them to be culturally responsive as they design assessments. Our personal experiences and data show that not all our students are the same. Yet, we frequently design assessments that presume sameness. Rather than assuming that a survey is the best tool for all students to give evidence of their learning, the multidimensional inclusive assessment model asks practitioners to be mindful of what student populations their institution serves; examine the language used in student learning outcomes to ensure that it is appropriate for all students populations; consider and acknowledge differences among students when planning an assessment effort; develop and implement assessment tools appropriate for the different populations of students; and intentionally use assessment results to improve learning for all students (Montenegro & Jankowski, 2017).

Summary Students are the result of a complex constellation of experiences. We represent a small number of inputs into the broader set of life experiences that ultimately make them who they are. Our responsibility is to engage, enhance, empower—and through our efforts, we seek outcomes that achieve measurable positive difference. Further, positive difference must be understood and informed by the articulated goals, interests, and needs unique to the individual student. Conduct and conflict resolution work in higher education lives at the intersection of internal and external imperatives. It is imperative that we engage in the student learning mandate while ensuring compliant, fair, and equitable process and procedures. It is also imperative that our work contributes fully to the creation and furtherance of inclusive environments, which are conducive for growth and development. And further, it is imperative that we transparently assess our policies, procedures, programs, and services to understand their influence toward inclusive excellence across the

306 sustainable innovation and transformation    board. Here, we suggest utilizing a conceptual framework that posits four primary components of consideration toward inclusive excellence in conduct and conflict resolution: equity, diversity, development, and climate. These considerations have necessary preconditions for success, including engaged leadership, shared vision, resources, and necessary infrastructure. Building on this framework for inclusive excellence, a multidimensional model for designing inclusive assessment is offered. Components that undergird this model include values, identity, difference, reciprocity, relational, and transformative dimensions.

Questions for Reflection and Dialogue 1. Know your current situation: From your current baseline, how would you describe your efforts to drive assessment? In what ways are inclusive elements built into the design? 2. Identify your opportunity: How would you summarize the opportunities that exist for both a “quick win” and longer-term planning to build inclusive elements into assessment? 3. Explore application: How might institutional and community values best inform and permeate our approach to the work and the means by which we assess our effectiveness? 4. Analyze identified assessment strategy: How might a future (or current) assessment strategy advance our understanding of equity in process and services, effective engagement with diversity, intergroup understanding and civic engagement, as well as student perceptions of reflective learning? 5. Synthesize your key takeaway: Given your current context, what do you believe is a key takeaway that will serve to advance inclusive assessment practices in conduct and conflict resolution work at your institution?

References Hutchings, P., Ewell, P., & Banta, T. (2012). AAHE principles of good practice: Aging nicely. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. https://www .learningoutcomesassessment.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ViewpointHutchings-EwellBanta.pdf Jones, K., Mixon, J. R., Henry, L., & Butcher, J. (2017). Response to cultures continuum and the development of intercultural responsiveness (IR). Education

cultural responsiveness in student conduct  

307

Leadership Review of Doctoral Research, 4, 1–16. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ EJ1144770.pdf Lederach, J. P. (2003). Little book of conflict transformation. Simon and Schuster. Montenegro, E., & Jankowski, N. A. (2017). Equity and assessment: Moving towards culturally responsive assessment. Occasional Paper, 29. https://pdfs .semanticscholar.org/eda6/f0443eecf7caafa82c306b42a3c5deecea92.pdf Rosin, H., & Spiegel, A. (2019, April). The end of empathy [Radio broadcast and podcast]. Invisibilia. https://www.npr.org/2019/04/15/712249664/the-end-ofempathy Stewart, D. L. (2017). Language of appeasement. Inside Higher Ed, 30. https://www .insidehighered.com/views/2017/03/30/colleges-need-language-shift-not-oneyou-think-essay Stitt-Bergh, M., Wehlburg, C. M., Rhodes, T., & Jankowski, N. (2019). Assessment for student learning and the public good. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 51(2), 43–46. Suskie, L. (2000). Fair Assessment Practices Giving students equitable opportunities to demonstrate learning. AAHE BULLETIN, 52(9), 7–9. http:incw.edu/cas/ assessment/docs/resources/fairassessmentpractices_suskie.pdf University of Michigan. (n.d.). Diversity, equity, and inclusion lifelong learning model. https://hr.umich.edu/working-u-m/professional-development/learning-develop ment-models/diversity-equity-inclusion-lifelong-learning-model Williams, D. A., Berger, J. B., & McClendon, S. A. (2005). Toward a model of inclusive excellence and change in postsecondary institutions. Association of American Colleges & Universities. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Berger4/ publication/238500335_Toward_a_Model_of_Inclusive_Excellence_and_ Change_in_Post-Secondary_Institutions/links/55c1227e08ae9289a09d0134/ Toward-a-Model-of-Inclusive-Excellence-and-Change-in-Post-SecondaryInstitutions.pdf

13 B U I L D I N G R E L AT I O N A L A N D CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS The Power of Peer-Led Restorative Justice Circles Among First-Year College Students Sheila M. McMahon and David R. Karp Expediency asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question, is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right. —Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (1968, p. 268)

Introduction Student development professionals currently face a complex set of tasks: how to promote respectful conversations in the context of conflict, protect free speech, deflect public scrutiny, and manage expectations of students and their parents/guardians, while also providing high-quality programs to enhance college students’ development (Kolowich, 2018; Matsuda, 2018; Temple et al., 2014). In a context of increasingly limited resources and litigious stakeholders, student affairs staff need timely and accessible tools to address campus conflict and to effectively manage competing needs (Patel, 2019). Campus climate issues such as bias incidents, sexual misconduct, intolerance, bullying, and increased mental health diagnoses among students further call on campuses to demonstrate a higher level of accountability even as budgets are shrinking (Shupp, 2016). Within this milieu, tensions have risen, ranging from debates about free speech to threats to personal safety based on one’s minority racial or sexual orientation status (Miller et al., 2018). As students from Generation Z (born mid-1990s to late-2000s) move into college life, there are additional educational and developmental 308

building relational and critical thinking skills  

309

challenges facing an increasingly diverse body of students who have grown up in an era in which K–12 enrichment programs have been cut; programs that have been shown to be instrumental in the development of critical thinking skills (Rickes, 2016). This is also as social media accessibility has exploded as a primary communication venue and information resource for today’s generation of learners and their existential interconnectedness across the globe is brought into sharp focus by a pandemic response. While today’s students have arguably less or at least different preparation for the rigors of adult life, these students bear the burden of sustainability concerns; they are the rising leaders who may be faced with the worst existential, environmental, public health, economic, and other practical concerns about our ability to endure (Rickes, 2016). Undergraduate students today want to see skills modeled before they try them, yet also desire system change that improves circumstances beyond their personal lives and learning experiences with direct application to real life (Seemiller & Grace, 2017). Thus, in the context of campus life, a focus on empowering students to cocreate their learning environments and learning processes offer creative options to build relationships, resolve harms, and increase a sense of community on campus, preparing individuals and communities to lead and thrive in the rapidly changing social and physical environments on campus and beyond. This chapter offers an innovative approach to using restorative principles and practices introduced in earlier chapters with first-year students.

Building Restorative Communities of Engaged Learners Given the complex factors shaping campus life, it is critical to consider both the content of what students must learn and meaningful processes for teaching students skills that will support their growth and development ongoing as lifelong learners. Bussu et al. (2018) describe their restorative communication model, which includes overlapping domains of life skills that college students need and can develop with support from mentors: cognitive (e.g., critical thinking and problem-solving), social/relational (e.g., effective communication and collaboration), and emotional (e.g., managing one’s emotions and the development of empathy for others). In this context, critical thinking is defined as skillfully synthesizing and evaluating information gleaned from experience, communication, or reasoning that allows individuals to make decisions and solve problems (Snyder & Snyder, 2008). Relational skills include self-awareness, sound communication, cooperation, and conflict resolution. Because these skills are inherently experiential,

310 sustainable innovation and transformation    students learn them through democratic engagement with others in their community, both with whom they may have much in common and with whom they may differ significantly on life experiences, identities, and values (Bussu et al., 2018). While people may be most familiar with the restorative justice conferences and circles described by Andrea Goldblum in chapter 9, offered in the aftermath of an incident involving harm, restorative practices can be introduced at a variety of stages of conflict and campus life (Acosta & Karp, 2018). As Figure 13.1 illustrates, tier I restorative practices, often in the form of restorative circles, are designed to build relationships in order to create a greater sense of belonging, to prevent campus-based harms before they happen, and to develop a common language for addressing individual and community concerns when they arise (often necessitating tier II and tier III restorative processes). Research in K–12 schools has found that restorative justice that is integrated throughout the school (e.g., in classrooms, in programs, and in policy such as disciplinary processes) as a “whole-school” approach is the most effective way to improve outcomes for students because of the relational nature of this approach (González et al., 2018; Kidde, 2017; Morrison et al., 2005). This “whole school” approach is consistent with the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) approach that positions restorative practice as both a pathway and theoretical foundation, as well as one of several lenses that come together to inform inclusive conflict excellence as introduced by Giacomini and Schrage in chapter 1. Restorative justice, which honors the indigenous roots of these practices and prioritizes relational approaches to Figure 13.1.  A whole campus approach using restorative justice practices. Circles of support and accountability

Restorative conferences

Communitybuilding circles

Tier III Reentry support

Tier II Respond to conflict and harm

Tier I Build and strengthen relationship

Note. This figure illustrates the three tiers of campus-based restorative practices.

building relational and critical thinking skills  

311

resolving conflict, signals to students of diverse identities, including race, gender expression, and ability, that they are welcome participants in the campus community. In this way, an integrated restorative justice approach can increase students’ sense of belonging in the school community (González et al., 2018). Despite the increased use of restorative justice in K–12 schools, colleges and universities have been slow to adopt restorative approaches to building community, addressing harms among students, and in the classroom (Bussu et al., 2018; Kara & MacAlister, 2010). Yet, restorative approaches are increasingly needed for building inclusive campus communities. One of the few models available in the research literature is a program called StudyCircle, which used restorative justice circles on a college campus to help address students’ expressed concerns about passing a high-stakes exam during their first year. The StudyCircle program was developed to provide peer support for the study process and to build peer relationships; to help students navigate interpersonal conflicts within the class; and to promote student engagement with the broader campus (Bussu et al., 2018). The StudyCircle program utilized a peer support model in the classroom, with the professor acting as a mentor/coach (Bussu et al., 2018; Huston & Weaver, 2007). This is important because research has found that peer support is critical in college (Strayhorn, 2019; Whiteman et al., 2013). Moreover, restorative approaches are not only meant to develop students’ interpersonal skills but also key to building communities of engaged student-citizens, so the integration of student peer leadership central to this restorative justice model supports the pressing need to democratize education (González et al., 2018), including higher education, rather than to perpetuate oppressive systems and punitive structures students have encountered before coming to college.

Application: First-Year Student-Led Circles The restorative circles described in this chapter are based on a series of peerled circles conducted on a college campus as part of a course designed to support first-year college students as they navigate their new school. In this model, one of this chapter’s contributors (David Karp) taught a first-year seminar of 17 students, with content focused on methods of conflict resolution. While first-year seminars by faculty vary in topical content, all faculty are expected to devote about 25% of the course to topics relevant to making the transition to college. All first-year students are required to participate in the seminar program. In this course, a series of circles were designed and

312 sustainable innovation and transformation    cofacilitated by the students and a peer mentor. Students were expected to research a designated topic, develop a series of dialogue questions, facilitate the circle, and reflect on their experience. These weekly circles, designed by the students in the class, addressed the following topics: health and wellness, substance abuse, academic integrity, friendship, diversity and inclusion, environmental sustainability, academic success, sustainability, and consent in the context of sexual decision-making. Each circle, cofacilitated by two student members of the class, followed the same format, using the five C’s of circle practice: convening, connecting, sharing concerns, collaborating on solutions, and closing the circle (Pranis, 2015; Pranis & Boyes-Watson, 2015). The following section provides a basic overview of each circle by topic, including guiding questions, circle activities, and students’ responses.

Health and Wellness Circle This circle included discussion about strategies for managing stress. Participants’ responses included running, swimming, being outside in nature, sleeping, riding bikes, using essential oils, coloring, making collages, talking with friends/family/loved ones, listening to music, writing down what is stressing them out in order to release it, or laughing to funny online videos. Sleep was a big topic of concern in this group. Some students described their stress management habits, such as procrastinating or relaxing with YouTube or Vine, which meant their sleep would be delayed. Others experimented with strategies such as napping in order to prolong their ability to stay up very late to complete course work.

Substance Abuse Circle This circle began by inviting participants to create a centerpiece using disposable red solo cups (which are common props in U.S. campus drinking games). The circle participants were invited to write on their solo cup why they think people may abuse substances. Participants wrote a variety of responses, including the use of drugs to feel good, the student feels peer pressure to do so, and the sense that college students “ought” to party; to feel better about themselves; and to control one’s emotions or as a coping mechanism. Many of the circle participants discussed substance use as an escape from reality, to forget about personal problems, to escape from painful feelings, or even as a way to escape from trauma they may have experienced, sometimes beginning at a young age. One participant saw substance use in college social settings as a way to overcome social anxiety, “because when

building relational and critical thinking skills  

313

everyone is fucked up, then there’s like this wall that’s down for everyone that’s usually there, and everyone can relax and talk to each other.” The group discussed their perceptions of “substance use” versus “substance abuse” among peers at the college. As first-year students, some students expressed uncertainty about commenting on this topic as they felt they were too new to the campus to know what behaviors were problematic. Some participants viewed substance abuse as the use of alcohol or drugs in a way that obstructs the ability to complete other life goals or tasks, while others argued that even a one-time misuse (e.g., a night of binge drinking) would still be substance abuse. One participant also pointed out that the campus culture, in which there is significant peer pressure to drink too much, may impact individual students’ choices around alcohol use/misuse. Hiding substance abuse was a common theme; as one participant summarized it, “What I have come to learn is that it’s nearly impossible, that people who are truly that dependent, and have that much of a prolonged use as I’ve defined ‘abuse,’ they’re very good at keeping it from people.”

Academic Integrity Circle The student leaders asked the group to name a person whom they see as having integrity. The qualities of integrity these individuals demonstrated, according to the students, ranged from working hard and not taking short cuts in work tasks to speaking out against wrongdoing and bullying. In order to achieve academic success, the students in the circle reflected the following needs: repetition of class content; time to build relationships with supportive faculty and friends; reassurance that they are doing their school work correctly; external motivation to overcome procrastination; being surrounded by others who are also working (one person needed to be alone to focus on school work); the freedom to be wrong and admit it; clear guidelines for assignments; and extra time for completing reading assignments. Another round of conversation in this circle addressed whether students believe that it matters whether one intentionally commits a violation of academic integrity. In response to a video clip about plagiarism, many of the students discussed the challenge of “being original” in one’s thinking and writing. One student was clear that intent did not matter and that students should be held responsible for plagiarism. However, most of the students discussed the need for consideration of other factors. Several circle participants expressed firm conviction that intent was as important or more so than impact, especially given the idea that it is difficult to develop original ideas, which could result in unintentional cheating.

314   

sustainable innovation and transformation

The closing round included an invitation to participants to consider what they would do to ensure their own academic integrity. Students talked about the need to review the university’s academic handbook and learn how to correctly format citations; understanding what is considered “original” and what is borrowed; using the campus writing center; and even taking care of their health so that they can pursue campus resources. One student expressed appreciation for the circle structure itself: “I also want to say I just appreciate this circle. I thought this circle was going to be like ‘don’t cheat,’ but I really got something out of it.” The circle supported students to take ownership of their own choices regarding their academic success through the practice of integrity.

Friendship Circle This circle opened with participants writing down and sharing a word that describes a value or quality they see in a friend who embodies that value. The values of friends included integrity, honesty, loyalty, listening, humility, considerateness, trustworthiness, and genuineness. These values were used to establish the qualities the circle participants would like to bring to the circle, as well as provide a basis for discussion about what friendship means. Among the descriptions of true friends, one of the students summarized, “For me, a true, meaningful friend is somebody, like many of you said, who is understanding and can speak to you from the heart, and not the surface conversations.” The circle then turned to challenges students have faced in their friendships and closed with a round of expressions of personal appreciation for one another.

Diversity and Inclusion Circle The students who facilitated this circle emphasized the importance of empathy as a mechanism for maintaining connection in the face of difference. They acknowledged that the group was predominantly White and the importance of acknowledging race-based privilege. While the circle facilitators defined diversity and inclusion broadly, throughout the circle process, students wrestled with this concept. One stated, “I agree that everyone is diverse, but I do want to acknowledge that this isn’t a diverse group, but we were able to have a diverse breadth of experiences so it’s kinda hard to weigh the two.” The talking piece used to facilitate dialogue was a sticky note on which each person could add a characteristic about themselves with which they identify, adding to the note as it was passed to them. Some students wrote down attributes such as “introverted” or “loyal” while others identified

building relational and critical thinking skills  

315

i­dentity-related categories such as “woman.” Participants then each shared when they felt included. Responses ranged from being part of a club or team in high school to being with siblings or cousins. Two students said they felt included in this class because they were comfortable knowing that they could approach any of their classmates in the circle for a meal or just to talk. Then, the facilitators asked about a time when each person felt excluded. In response, one student expressed outrage at the current U.S. presidential administration’s approach to persons who are transgender and the feelings of anguish that many people’s voices are not being heard in our national discourse. Another student voiced their struggle with the question. “I feel like this is kind of a hard question for me. The emotions I associate with exclusion are self-hatred because when another group or another person excludes me, I feel like I turn it toward myself in a way.” Many students in the group expressed similar feelings of how being excluded, or the perception of exclusion, often led them to further self-isolate. When asked what constitutes an inclusive, diverse community, students discussed the importance of being heard and acceptance and acknowledgment of individuals’ differing backgrounds. One student pointed out the need for being open to learning, being able to learn from mistakes (e.g., being corrected for using the wrong gender pronouns for another person), and still being able to move forward together. The group discussed the impact of engaging with people of different identities and backgrounds. Each student had a story of encountering difference, ranging from a friend of a different racial and class background in high school to having faculty of color as teachers and the value of the intergroup relations course that the college offers. When the circle got to the problem-solving round, members discussed what they could each commit to in order to make a constructive effort to improve diversity and inclusion on their campus. One student remarked, “Engaging vulnerability. Listening and not always speaking.”

Academic Success Circle This circle began with a light connection round in which students shared which snack they would be if they were to be a snack. Then, each student shared an item that represents their experiences at the college to date. Several students brought books they are reading for classes and commented on how much they are required to read (and how much they are learning!). Students also shared their academic highs and lows of the week, which provided an opportunity to hear common concerns such as lack of sleep, procrastination, and getting sick. Students also shared their favorite things to do on campus,

316 sustainable innovation and transformation    such as meeting new people and getting out in nature. When they discussed their favorite classes, one of the students identified this one noting that “I have never voluntarily talked this much in a class before, and I don’t mind. I’m comfortable and I feel fine putting myself out there now.”

Sustainability Circle The group played the stick game (getting a stick to the ground with each member holding it by one finger) to demonstrate that it can be hard to work together, and to show the connection to the tragedy of the commons, whereby people tend to consider their individual needs before the needs of the collective, including stewardship needs and responsibilities for our planet. The facilitators passed out facts about environmental harms, and each participant took a turn reading one. They asked participants what they are already doing to live sustainably. Students engage in a range of behaviors, including recycling, turning off the lights and water faucets, and using a reusable water bottle. They discussed their ideal sustainable environment. Two students in the circle shared their decisions to maintain vegetarian diets in order to limit their negative impact on the environment; another pointed out that vegetarianism is more common among Millennials than past generations. Several students discussed friends’ decisions not to value sustainability, instead prioritizing personal comfort and convenience, such as using Uber when public transportation is available and efficient. One student pointed out the need for corporations to start prioritizing sustainability instead of profit; the student quipped, “Like you’re not gonna die and take away your money with you; like why is this so important, but I mean yeah, I think that issue being more considerate and thoughtful.” When asked how they could advocate for positive change, several students shared the experiences they have had with their families using solar energy. One student suggested promoting food conservation in the dining hall through a program they saw at another college in which students could eat leftovers for free. Another student suggested voting for elected officials who support sustainability efforts, while another talked about the need for policy changes, such as not subsidizing oil companies. The facilitators then asked about the current culture of sustainability in the United States. The students discussed the difference between the “American dream” of a large house with a lawn, and how that is an environmentally unsustainable desire. While students used index cards to write down one thing they could do in the future to support sustainability, such as eating less meat and driving electric vehicles, they also expressed sadness and horror about policy decisions such as the current U.S. presidential administration’s

building relational and critical thinking skills  

317

withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord. They seemed to share a general sense that human life is doomed and were dismayed because they believed that most Americans were unaware of the extent of the dangers associated with climate change. It bears note that this sense of doom preceded the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and a heightened sense of vulnerability in the face of a global public health crisis.

Sexual Misconduct Circle This circle started with a trigger warning and a commitment to honoring the fact that this topic may make circle participants feel vulnerable. The two students who facilitated made resources available to the group, such as the contact information for the campus counseling center. They then led an activity in which the facilitators read a scenario involving sexual misconduct and the group discussed at what point they saw the behavior as inappropriate as opposed to the point at which it violated the college’s sexual assault policy. They discussed a continuum of inappropriate behaviors that may escalate to illegal acts such as rape, and several of the students noted that restorative justice could be used to facilitate healing and repair harm, especially when the form of sexual misconduct does not rise to a level of breaking the law or the campus code of conduct. They then viewed the video “Tea Consent” (Blue Seat Studios, 2015), a metaphor for consent based on someone offering another person a cup of tea. The students agreed that consent should involve mutual enthusiastic affirmative responses during any kind of sexual activity, even if partners have had sex together before. They discussed additional statistics about sexual assault and rape on college campuses, including the low rates of reporting among sexual assault survivors, with nearly 95% of campus sexual assaults unreported to campus officials (Holland & Cortina, 2017). One circle participant summarized, “Why would you ever want to even risk talking about that and putting yourself through that if you feel like your school isn’t going to help you?” Another student echoed concerns in the circle about lack of confidentiality for victims/survivors and a sense that while the trauma itself is ignored in the aftermath of a sexual assault, the survivor is often scrutinized by peers and administrators alike. The tone of this circle was notably more somber than the previous circles; students spoke thoughtfully and carefully, coming to consensus on the need to respect others’ boundaries and speak up when sexual misconduct happens. Most students in the group agreed that they were in high school when they first learned about sexual misconduct, and many commented that they wished they had had conversations about this issue starting at a younger age.

318   

sustainable innovation and transformation

Conclusion We are just beginning to understand the possible positive impacts of restorative justice practices on college campuses, particularly when implemented across all three tiers and infused throughout the curriculum. After reviewing the video recordings of the circle processes introduced, we found common themes across the nine different circles that may be useful to faculty and administrators interested in supporting future in-person and online peer-led restorative justice circles on their own campuses. The role of peer pressure in high-risk behaviors among students underscores students’ need for spaces in which to engage in authentic conversations. The circle discussions highlight students’ social and emotional needs for social support, connection, and a sense of belonging. Students have limited opportunity and ability to reflect critically on issues in contemporary politics and society. Restorative circles provide a structure that allows for civil discourse, empathetic listening, and collaborative problem-solving. Students develop strong interpersonal connections and communication skills while addressing topics that are both personally relevant to them and of significant importance to college student development. We observed students to be highly engaged in the circles, and the circles became a weekly touchstone for their otherwise busy and stressful lives as new college students. Even as first-year students, they were highly capable (after substantial training) to not only participate in the circles but also design and cofacilitate them. Readers interested in furthering their knowledge and resource base about restorative justice applications and case studies across general campus practices, Title IX, and instruction will find extensive additional resources at the University of San Diego Center for Restorative Justice (www.sandiego.edu/soles/restorativejustice/) under David Karp’s leadership as a professor and director of the Center for Restorative Justice in the School of Leadership and Education Sciences.

Summary This chapter examines the central themes that emerged from a series of peerfacilitated circles among a group of first-year college students over the course

building relational and critical thinking skills  

319

of a semester. Topics selected by the group included wellness, substance abuse, sexual misconduct, and civic engagement. Themes that emerged from the circle conversations, such as the role of peer pressure in high-risk behaviors among students, underscore students’ need for spaces in which to engage in authentic conversations. The use of circles helped support students in establishing pro-social peer norms and deeper engagement in coconstruction of a healthy campus climate.

Questions for Reflection and Dialogue 1. What is restorative justice? 2. What are the five components of a basic restorative circle? 3. What are the three tiers of restorative justice interventions on college campuses? 4. If you were to help design a tier I circle, what questions would you suggest asking to build relationships among the circle participants? 5. What qualities do you imagine are important for a circle facilitator, especially as a peer who is leading circles for fellow students? 6. Do the themes identified by the students in the restorative circles presented in this chapter resonate with your experience on campus? If so, what specific aspects of the themes are important to you and to your campus and how might introducing circles at your institution facilitate constructive engagement of these themes? 7. When you witness conflict, what are the responses you typically observe? How effective are they? How might a restorative approach be helpful to addressing conflicts between peers?

References Acosta, D., & Karp, D. R. (2018). Restorative justice as the Rx for mistreatment in academic medicine: Applications to consider for learners, faculty, and staff. Academic Medicine, 93(3), 354–356. Blue Seat Studios. (2015, May 12). Tea consent [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8 Bussu, A., Veloria, C. N., & Boyes-Watson, C. (2018). StudyCircle: Promoting a restorative student community. Pedagogy and the Human Sciences, 6(1), 1–20. https://scholarworks.merrimack.edu/phs/vol6/iss1/6 González, T., Sattler, H., & Buth, A. J. (2018). New directions in whole-school restorative justice implementation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 36(3), 207– 220.

320   

sustainable innovation and transformation

Holland, K. J., & Cortina, L. M. (2017). “It happens to girls all the time”: Examining sexual assault survivors’ reasons for not using campus supports. American Journal of Community Psychology, 59(1–2), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12126 Huston, T. & Weaver, C.L. (2007). Peer coaching: Professional development for experienced faculty. Innovation Higher Education, 33, 5–20. Kara, F., & MacAlister, D. (2010). Responding to academic dishonesty in universities: A restorative justice approach. Contemporary Justice Review, 13(4), 443–453, https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2010.517981 Kidde, J. (2017). Whole-school restorative approach resource guide: An orientation to a whole-school restorative approach and guide toward more in-depth resources and current research. Vermont Agency of Education. King, M. L., Jr. (1968, March 31). Remaining awake through a great revolution. In The essential writings and speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. (p. 268). ­HarperCollins. Kolowich, S. (2018, April 27). State of conflict: How a tiny protest at the U. of Nebraska turned into a proxy war for the future of campus politics. Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/state-of-conflict Matsuda, M. J. (2018). Words that wound: Critical race theory, assaultive speech, and the first amendment. Routledge. Miller, R. A., Guida, T., Smith, S., Ferguson, S. K., & Medina, E. (2018). Free speech tensions: Responding to bias on college and university campuses. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 55(1), 27–39. Morrison, B., Blood, P., & Thorsborne, M. (2005). Practicing restorative justice in school communities: The challenge of culture change. Public Organization Review, 5, 335–357. Patel, V. (2019, February 18). The new “in loco parentis.” Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/Trend19-InLoco-Main Pranis, K. (2015). Little book of circle processes: A new/old approach to peacemaking. Simon and Schuster. Pranis, K., & Boyes-Watson, C. (2015). Circle forward: Building a restorative school community. Living Justice Press. Rickes, P. C. (2016). Generations in flux. Planning for Higher Education,  44(4), 21–45. Schrage, J. M., & Thompson, M. C. (2008, June). Using a social justice model for conflict resolution to ensure access for all students. Paper presented at the Donald D. Gehring Academy for Student Conduct Administration, Salt Lake City, UT.  Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2017). Generation Z: Educating and engaging the next generation of Students. About Campus, 22(3), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/ abc.21293 Shupp, M. R. (2016). Creating healthy college climates through intentionality. In S. T. Gregory & J. Edwards (Eds.), Invitational education in higher education: An international perspective (pp. 179–192). Lexington. Snyder, L. G., & Snyder, M. J. (2008). Teaching critical thinking and problemsolving skills. Journal of Research in Business Education, 50(2), 90–99.

building relational and critical thinking skills  

321

Strayhorn, T. (2019). College students’ sense of belonging. Routledge. Temple, P., Callender, C., Grove, L., & Kersh, N. (2014). Managing the student experience in a shifting higher education landscape. Higher Education Academy, 1(1), 1–25. Whiteman, S. D., Barry, A. E., Mroczek, D. K., & MacDermid Wadsworth, S. (2013). The development and implications of peer emotional support for student service members/veterans and civilian college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(2), 265–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031650

14 C U LT U R E , C O N F L I C T, A N D STUDENT LEARNING Intercultural Development for Global and Inclusive Graduates Julio J. Cardona, Ramona Meraz Lewis, Nathan J. Hanke, D. Eric Archer, Mary Jo E. Desprez, and Donna M. Talbot We seldom realize . . . that our most private thoughts and emotions are not actually our own. For we think in terms of languages and images which we did not invent, but which were given to us by our society. – Alan W. Watts (1966)

Introduction Intercultural competence remains a critical skill for success in an increasingly diverse society and will continue to play an important role in developing future generations to engage effectively in an ever more global economy (Deardorff, 2006; Perozzi & Ramos, 2016). Campuses reflect these demographic and cultural trends, and most U.S. colleges and universities are recruiting and enrolling highly diverse incoming classes. Therefore, promoting positive cross-cultural experiences and global perspectives to reduce prejudice and racism “are noble—and critical—goals for universities and K–12 schools in the 21st century” (Hammer, 2012, p. 116). These increasingly global and diverse campus communities bring an array of new opportunities and complexities, particularly around crosscultural engagement and learning through conflict. With the arrival of each new class of in-person and online learners, institutions are called on to be more active in identifying strategies and approaches to encourage student engagement across identities as higher education experiences rising 322

culture, conflict, and student learning  

323

stratification. This engagement can lead to conflict as a result of different cultural expressions and implications. Understanding and effectively addressing these conflicts requires appreciation of how culture and conflict intersect. Conflict is “any situation in which people have apparently incompatible interests, goals, principles, or feelings” and may begin at low levels of intensity, but “as conflict evolves (and the evolution can occur with alarming speed), the intensity may grow to painful proportions” (Runde & Flanagan, 2012 p. 99). Likewise, conflict can stem from incompatibilities as well as misunderstandings based on individual perspectives, opinions, values, and cultural experiences. To honor the diversity of student populations, promote productive engagement across differences, and move campus communities toward more global and inclusive environments, today’s institutions have access to a vast array of intercultural learning tools to support educational efforts. In addition to the IDI explored in this chapter, other online and hard copy assessments help develop perspective taking and coping with conflict. For example, the Thomas–Kilmann conflict mode inventory (TKI) and the conflict dynamics profile (CDP) are introduced in chapter 6. Fantini (2009) chronicles several additional intercultural learning inventories and resources in “Assessing Intercultural Competence.” Use of these tools can be a powerful complement to a spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) approach to conflict management by equipping students to see and experience conflict and seek pathways for resolution with increased selfawareness and understanding of context. Regardless of the specific tool(s) selected by an institution, intercultural learning initiatives provide students with the opportunity to (re)consider their own intercultural competency and develop skills for engaging across difference, which, in turn, improves the campus climate and facilitates future personal and professional student success. To illustrate the potential impact of intercultural learning tools in general, we explore the impact of the IDI specifically. This chapter’s focus on the IDI is not intended to serve as an endorsement of this tool but to demonstrate the relevance of intercultural development to learning outcomes and offer practitioners insight into our pilot experiences to inform their own related intercultural learning initiatives for undergraduate and graduate students.

The IDI Pilot Experience The IDI was developed by Mitchell Hammer (2011) based on research adapted from the developmental model of intercultural sensitivity, which

324 sustainable innovation and transformation    originally proposed by Milton Bennett. The IDI is a cross-culturally valid, reliable, and generalizable measure of intercultural competence along the validated intercultural development continuum (Hammer, 2012) that, as discussed, can help equip students for entering the conflict management pathways of the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008). The IDI has been used broadly to give individuals and groups a snapshot of their level of intercultural competence, plotted along the intercultural development continuum (IDC). This continuum of mind-sets ranges from monocultural to intercultural. For students, the IDI can be used as a tool for self-exploration as well as perspective-taking. Of the many approaches that move conflict from disruptive toward constructive, “[p]erspective taking may be the most powerful behavior a leader can use to move conflict toward constructive, satisfying, and mutually agreeable outcomes” (Runde & Flanagan, 2012, p. 132). There are two critical aspects of perspective-taking, content and emotional, and both are elements of constructive conflict management and resolution (Runde & Flanagan, 2012). We offer intercultural/global mind-set as a third aspect of perspective-taking that is critical to developing a healthy relationship with conflict, especially within diverse environments. Having an intercultural/global mind-set means taking into consideration multiple culturally informed viewpoints and perspectives both internally and externally as one engages across difference. The following sections of this chapter include an overview of IDI experiences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (U-M), with undergraduate students and Western Michigan University (WMU) with graduate students. Within each section, we provide a review of (a) how each institution deploys the tool, (b) how it aligns with intercultural development, and (c) how it addresses intercultural competence at both the individual level and for the campus community. This chapter concludes with implications for using the IDI in student conflict resolution and its potential impact on campus climate efforts more broadly.

Using the IDI in Undergraduate Education In 2016, the U-M launched a campus-wide 5-year strategic plan to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion on campus. This institutional mobilization coincided with an initial investment in use of the IDI with students. Williams et al. (2005) argue that to create a culture of inclusive excellence higher education leaders must consider how their campus environments can adapt to meet the needs of today’s highly diverse entering students, rather

culture, conflict, and student learning  

325

than beginning with the assumption that diverse students must assimilate into existing environments. To this end, the IDI was identified as an intercultural learning tool that could provide U-M students with an opportunity to learn about their own approach to navigating across difference as well as gaining a shared vocabulary and parallel experience with peers who also participated in an IDI experience. As a result, a pilot implementation of the IDI began in fall 2016. During the pilot, program method, sequence of student progression through the IDI experiences, and the curriculum surrounding the IDI as a learning tool have been developed and refined. The U-M IDI experience includes a brief introductory in-person presentation prior to completing the IDI and an interactive group session that explores culture broadly, identifies the stages of the IDC, and presents and debriefs the IDI group results. This experience has been adopted across campus as a module in several courses as well as in cocurricular settings. All aspects of the experience are facilitated by U-M staff who have been trained as IDI qualified administrators (QAs). Broad programmatic impact is measured through an 18-measure student learning outcome assessment collected with a pre- and post-survey methodology. The U-M IDI experience is a proactive measure that supports the U-M campus community in specific student development goals. Data from the University of Michigan Student Campus Climate Study on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (2016) indicates that, like many campuses, a significant number of students come to campus having grown up in communities where all or mostly all the people share the same race and ethnicity. This indicates that for many students the campus community represents the first environment where cross-cultural interactions will arise more consistently. The study also revealed that students are interacting in meaningful ways with people of differing political orientation, race, ethnicity, social class, national origin, abilities, and sexual orientation while in campus supported spaces. Broad programmatic impact is examined by administering a valid and reliable 18-item instrument prior to the start and upon completion of the IDI experience. This instrument examines the progress students make on the six core student learning outcomes, adopted by the Division of Student Life, during their time in the IDI experience. These six core student learning outcomes align with the mission of the Division of Student Life, are informed by the Association of American Colleges & Universities’ work identifying the essential learning foundational to higher learning, are grounded in the concept of integrative learning, and are based on theories of student learning and development (Huber & Hutchings, 2004; Peet et al., 2011; Schön, 1983; Taylor, 2008). The learning outcomes are as follows:

326   

sustainable innovation and transformation

Collaboration across differences: Students are able to work with and learn from others, whose identities may differ from their own, to accomplish goals and solve problems. Demonstrate knowledge: Students are able to discuss their learning, integrate new information, and apply learning across contexts. Health and wellness: Students understand how to promote health and well-being and manage life’s challenges. Identity and perspectives: Students can explain how their social identities and experiences shape meaning-making and ethical decision-making practices. Motivation and purpose: Students can identify and discuss their values and beliefs that shape their learning, behavior, and professional goals. Reflective and relational learning: Students reflect on their personal expectations and the expectations of others for their learning and growth. During their IDI experience, U-M students, on average, exhibited statistically significant positive gains on these six student learning outcomes in 2017–2018. Students also affirmed at high rates that they viewed themselves differently, considered things they would not usually think about, and have set diversity-, equity-, and inclusion-related goals as a result of their IDI experience. To demonstrate the scope of infusion within academic curriculum, we highlight a classroom integration of the IDI in an engineering course offered to undergraduate students, delivered in partnership between Student Life and the College of Engineering.  The intercultural learning initiatives offered by Student Life continue to include the IDI as well as a broader range of intercultural learning tools, programs, and strategies that aim to address the needs of the campus community and provide opportunities for students to learn about and develop methods to navigate interactions across difference. Broadly, this work has shown success in its impact on students’ intercultural development (Box 14.1). To remain proactive, Student Life has made efforts to embed the IDI into a range of cocurricular programs and class offerings. To date, IDI has been incorporated into cocurricular applications with a range of student organizations, student and staff groups, governance organizations, and advisory boards. The IDI has also been incorporated into academic partnerships across several disciplines, delivering on outcomes aligned with academic course aims across the university. This synergy develops truly collaborative partnerships that bring conversations about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) to a student audience

culture, conflict, and student learning  

327

BOX 14.1.

Classroom Integration of the IDI

The IDI has been included as an additional resource to complement course content that includes guest speakers and group discussions focused on intercultural knowledge and case studies of engineering-related projects in a global context. The IDI has been used in two ways within this course: 1. As a learning module where students complete the IDI and participate in an IDI group results class session and in opportunities for students to receive their individual results in a coaching session with an IDI QA. 2. As an evaluation tool, the IDI is administered for a second time. The initial IDI and the second IDI are used as a pre- and post-test to track the collective progression of the class along the IDC. Findings showed that students who capitalized on the opportunity for an individual IDI results meeting saw developmental orientation growth nearly five times greater than their peers who elected not to complete this additional step. The compelling nature of this data inspired the course instructor to commit even further to the IDI experience by offering additional time for all students to meet with a QA in lieu of class time. As a result, during the next semester the entire class saw a greater progression of their developmental stage on the IDC and a further reduction in their overestimation of developmental level than the class in the previous term. As this partnership continues, IDC progressions have occurred for the students in this course. Additionally, many students have since applied their knowledge of the IDC in cross-cultural case work within the classroom and by taking this knowledge and experience into their experiences through internship site placements domestically and while studying or working abroad.

within the construct of their chosen academic discipline. This intentional positioning of the IDI can offer students an opportunity to draw connections between IDI content and their field of study. Participating among their colleagues and peers within a classroom can also provide additional opportunity for their shared experience and resulting new vocabulary about DEIrelated issues and may serve as a resource during their time together as they become reference points and resources whenever conflict arises.

328   

sustainable innovation and transformation

At the time of this writing, use of the IDI is being adopted by several academic disciplines and cocurricular partners on campus as an individual development tool, and the investment of resources and consequent impact on students is positive. U-M has also benefited from an intentional effort to link the IDI to the U-M student experience with all content delivered by U-M QAs and through developing an intentional protocol to deploy the IDI that includes topical curriculum surrounding the tool.

Recommendations and Considerations For the U-M pilot, a large staff team was trained as IDI QAs. The U-M program model is an individual development use of the IDI and is designed to feature QAs from the campus community. With this approach, capacity to serve students is linked to the number of individuals serving as QAs and the hours each can commit to meeting individually with students. This approach involves investment in training QAs through IDI qualifying seminars conducted by IDI trainers (IDI, n.d.). A primary benefit of this approach is that students can meet individually with QAs from their campus community. Additional potential benefits include the following: 1. Staff trained as QAs improve their own intercultural competence, which benefits their professional contributions and the students they serve.  2. Serving as a QA can create interactions with students through different disciplines and affiliations. 3. A QA’s reporting unit can benefit from team members who have received training about intercultural mind-sets and who are actively engaged in this campus-wide intercultural effort. 4. Staff receive a professional credential that they will carry throughout their career. Several considerations for campuses exploring an IDI pilot include the following: 1. To maximize resources, consider investing in QA training for a small number of personnel (up to five) rather than a large cohort (if funding is unavailable). This training provides QAs the ability to purchase and interpret the IDI for individuals and groups. With a single QA, an institution could deploy the IDI as a group development tool to engage students in their group within class sections and organizations. While students do not benefit from individual coaching, this group

culture, conflict, and student learning  

329

approach still prompts discourse about intercultural mind-sets and introduces a shared framework and vocabulary that may foster a more inclusive campus community. 2. Partnerships are critical to sustaining the IDI on campus. This effort requires commitment from academic and non-academic units (human resources, student affairs, etc.) to ensure the success and efficacy of the IDI implementation. 3. To gain and sustain institutional support, clearly demonstrate the IDI’s alignment with student development needs, learning outcomes, and improving campus climate through fostering more productive conflict engagement. 4. To maximize resources and impact, implement the IDI with campus units sharing intercultural learning as a key focus. 5. To foster many pathways for intercultural skill development, offer the IDI as part of a strategic set of comprehensive tools that help students increase their capacity for cross-cultural interactions and communication so as not to give the impression that there is only one tool that meets every need.

Using the IDI in Graduate Education The IDI is also a valuable tool for graduate students and complements most academic graduate programs committed to graduating students equipped to engage in a global and diverse profession. This is particularly true for graduate student affairs programs in which scholars have highlighted the importance of developing interculturally competent and globally engaged future professionals through graduate preparation programs in student affairs (ACPA/NASPA, 2015; Cooper et al., 2011; Harris & Linder, 2018; Pope & Mueller, 2005; Talbot, 1996). Tenets such as diversity, inclusion, and access are central to our work as student affairs educators and critical to our ability to address the development of the whole student and support efforts to engage across difference when working with various marginalized and historically underrepresented students on college campuses. In fact, this commitment to cross-cultural competence is emphasized not only in student affairs founding documents but also by most professional associations in the field (Council for the Advancement of Standard in Higher Education, 2019; ACPA/NASPA, 2015). Such approaches often emphasize the development of the whole person and the work necessary to effectively minimize conflict within organizations (Nienow & Stringer, 2016). Despite emphasizing a focus on diversity and inclusion and/or the importance of helping

330   

sustainable innovation and transformation

TABLE 14.1

Multicultural Change Intervention Matrix Target of Change

First-Order Change

Second-Order Change

Individual

A. Awareness

B. Paradigm shift

Group

C. Membership

D. Restructuring

Institutional

E. Programmatic

F. Systemic

Note. Pope et al. (2014).

emerging professionals develop a global mind-set, many graduate programs continue to struggle with episodes of racism, microaggressions, and intercultural conflict (Harris & Linder, 2018; Robbins, 2016). In the graduate program at WMU, we recognized the need to assess our programmatic efforts to understand and increase intercultural competence in ourselves (faculty and student affairs practitioners), our students, and our program. Pope, Reynolds, and Mueller (2014) suggest that assessing multicultural efforts should focus on more than the individual. Their approach, called the multicultural change intervention matrix (MCIM; see Table 14.1), helped our decision-making in selecting the IDI, a tool that offers us the opportunity to address intercultural competency development on the individual, group, and programmatic levels (Hammer, 2012; Pope et al., 2014).

An IDI Experience at WMU WMU offers a master of arts degree in educational leadership with a concentration in higher education and student affairs (HESA) leadership that has a specific focus on diversity and serving marginalized populations in higher education. The program’s mission has always emphasized “preparing mid- and entry-level reflective practitioners who recognize the centrality of diversity and inclusiveness to higher education (HESA, n.d.). The HESA curriculum is composed of 39 credit hours, requiring one common course on equity and diversity in higher education, as well as an individually designed diversity cognate, which requires students to choose six additional credits of coursework emphasizing knowledge of and work with historically marginalized populations. Over the years, HESA has worked to expand curricular and cocurricular offerings around topics related to diversity and inclusion. As a systematic way to assess our commitment to diversity and inclusiveness in higher education, we adopted a multifaceted plan that included using the IDI. Our implementation of the IDI involved administration of the

culture, conflict, and student learning  

331

inventory with graduate students, group and individual debriefs, and partnerships with student affairs colleagues. Each of these steps are explained next. Out of necessity, since we had only one program faculty member trained as an IDI QA, effectively implementing our proposed IDI assessment process required partnering with the Division of Student Affairs (DSA). Program faculty consulted with professionals within DSA that were trained IDI QAs. This involved seeking input from DSA colleagues about best practices for use of the IDI in our graduate program and then evolved into a partnership. With the help of these DSA colleagues, we created a process, timeline, and classroom assignment guides outlining the plans for using the IDI for program assessment. In fall 2018, we started our process by embedding an assignment in a first semester course required for all HESA master’s students. Early in the course, we conducted a brief orientation to the IDI and gave students a deadline by which to complete the inventory. Shortly after all students completed the inventory, a HESA faculty member who is a trained IDI QA conducted the group IDI feedback session. This group feedback session sets the foundational understanding of intercultural competence for the entire group of graduate students. For our process, the group feedback session is required before any individual results are shared with students. After the group IDI feedback session, students signed up for individual IDI feedback sessions with our DSA partners and a HESA faculty member, all of whom were trained IDI QAs. Students were provided a 1-month window to complete their individual IDI feedback session. During the feedback sessions, students received their individual results, discussed their reactions, and were introduced to the individual development plan (IDP); after the feedback session, students submitted a brief reflection about what they learned about themselves, as well as committed two specific goals and actions to implement by the end of their first year of graduate school. The IDP is a report that provides individualized recommendations based on one’s IDI results. The report provides examples of a variety of activities that one can engage in to work toward intercultural development. Students in our graduate program use the results of their IDI, the information learned from the IDI feedback session, and selected activities from the IDP to establish their own plan toward intercultural development. This same process will be followed in students’ final semester of their graduate program as well as with future incoming student groups. As part of the students ongoing work with the IDI there are several informal as well as formal activities that the faculty are constantly refining. Informally, the IDI is discussed in courses and as part of group and individual

332 sustainable innovation and transformation    student advising sessions. One example of a formal course-embedded activity is a “Philosophy of Diversity and Inclusion ePortfolio” assignment completed as part of the course on equity and diversity in higher education (EDLD 6570). In addition, after students complete their first field internship, midway through their program, students are required to formally reflect on their progress toward IDI goals and reconsider goals for their next year of graduate study. Finally, at the end of the graduate program, students complete an ePortfolio in which, among other activities, they integrate a final reflection about their growth in the ACPA/NASPA (2015) professional competency area of equity, diversity, and inclusion, which includes discussion of their IDI experience. Finally, we held a follow-up meeting with the DSA IDI QAs focusing on three areas: what they learned about the students from their interactions, their personal learning from engaging in the process, and any feedback they had on the process.

Recommendations and Considerations Through a Web search, electronic mailing list distribution, and follow-up emails we were able to identify a few institutions that have chosen to utilize the IDI assessment with students. However, we are confident that this is not an all-inclusive list and there are probably more institutions using the IDI for various purposes. Those with whom we communicated using the instrument with undergraduate students include Purdue University’s Center for Intercultural Learning, Mentorship, Assessment and Research (CILMAR); the University of Colorado, Boulder’s Center for Inclusion and Social Change; the Cranwell International Center at Virginia Tech; and the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Institutions that specifically use the IDI with graduate students include the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, which reported using the IDI with higher education and student affairs graduate students participating in short-term study-abroad programs, and Oklahoma State University, which is using the IDI with graduate students in their marriage and family therapy master’s program. Finally, the Rackham Graduate School at the U-M utilizes the IDI as part of the professional development diversity and inclusion certificate. In presenting our work, we believe it is important to briefly highlight several lessons we learned from this process. 1. Understand that the information gathered is not just about students and student growth. Recognizing the importance of faculty learning

culture, conflict, and student learning  

333

and creating intentional markers for reflection for faculty as well as students and program growth is essential. 2. Work toward greater intercultural understanding is a process and not a product, which involves ongoing self-reflection, self-awareness, and self-assessment. We encourage individuals to be intentional and systematic in their use of the IDI in a graduate curriculum, for example, building in processes for students to revisit what they learned from the IDI throughout the curriculum and regularly reflect on their action plans. 3. Use of IDI can be labor intensive and requires multiple opportunities for both individual and group reflection. This process provides, and almost mandates, an opportunity to partner with other offices and entities within the university. 4. It is not unusual for the IDI to evoke resistance and strong reactions (Hammer, 2012), particularly if individuals’ perceived score did not match their actual score. In general, feedback from our students was varied (as we expected); we know from our experience that resistance can be minimized. In order to decrease resistance during the process, know your “audience” (in our case, graduate students) and be painstakingly planful, purposeful, and transparent with those involved in what you are doing. Many of these steps are outlined in the IDI Resource Guide (Hammer, 2013). 5. If you are using the IDI for program improvement, be sure that it aligns with program goals and values.

The IDI at WMU Moving Forward Although we are in the early phases of using the IDI, we are encouraged by our progress thus far. In moving forward with the use of the IDI in program assessment, there are several future strategies related to more fully integrating the IDI across all aspects of the graduate program. These strategies broadly revolve around three main areas: faculty development, coursework and program development, and student development. Faculty Development Faculty must explore their own intercultural competence (Cooper et al., 2011; Linder et al., 2015; Pope et al., 2014; Robbins, 2016). Graduate programs need to provide space for faculty to talk openly

334   

sustainable innovation and transformation

about successes and challenges with their own experiences regarding intercultural development. Have all full-time (and eventually part-time) graduate program faculty complete the IDI assessment, participate in IDI feedback sessions, and engage in continuous professional development around intercultural competence. Provide opportunities for faculty to regularly discuss with each other insights from the IDI process regarding intercultural development and how faculty can develop more effective strategies in supporting students in the program. Coursework and Program Development Ensure that all program faculty are trained as an IDI QA to assist with implementation of the group and individual IDI feedback sessions. Regularly integrate students’ IDI results and goals for intercultural development in courses and through assignments, readings, reflections, and discussions. Intentionally create more dialogue around intercultural conflict using the shared language and knowledge from the IDI (e.g., classroom assignments, case studies, role-playing, guest speakers). Use data collected from the IDI to continually improve program goals focused on diversity and inclusion. Potentially, offer the opportunity to students’ GA or internship supervisors to take the IDI and participate in feedback sessions. Student Development Create more opportunities for students to regularly discuss their strengths and improvement areas highlighted in their IDI results with faculty, staff, and other students. Help students regularly reflect on IDP progress. Integrate the IDI into a new graduate student orientation program. Possible development of a HESA graduate program retreat in which intercultural competency is a focus. Making the commitment to systematically assess our graduate program’s stated purpose of helping higher education and student affairs professionals in recognizing the centrality of diversity and inclusion to their work has been both a challenging and rewarding process. Such a commitment requires time, energy, and a willingness to constantly reflect on ourselves and our program and to be open to using information gleaned from our assessment work to

culture, conflict, and student learning  

335

improve what we offer to our students. We believe the work we have achieved thus far to be highly beneficial to improving the experience of our graduate students and we would invite you to make your own commitment to undertaking this work as well.

Conclusion We see the use of the IDI in higher education institutions as a process, not just a destination. The IDI shows merit as it relates to the pathways of the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) by encouraging improved dialogue and productive engagement when conflict arises. Additionally, the IDI highlights the potential of improving the practice of restorative circles by using an intercultural approach. The implementation of IDI can be time intensive; it takes intentionality and cannot be just a “one shot” activity. Most importantly, use of the IDI requires commitment from all levels of the institution. This approach does not simply help students change their approach to conflict; rather, it helps them to see the benefits of acting on foundations of social justice and restorative justice while framing conflict through an intercultural lens of inclusive excellence. In this way, integrating the IDI throughout student education and development efforts moves both the individual and campus closer to becoming more global and inclusive.

Summary Conflict on campus is inevitable, and as higher education institutions continue to enroll students with highly diverse backgrounds, identity and range of experiences will continue to appear within the conflict of a campus community. For leaders in higher education and student affairs, there is an increasing need for multicultural awareness, global engagement, and intercultural competence to be reflected in both the curricular and cocurricular experiences we provide to our students (Heyl & Tullbane, 2012; Perozzi & Ramos, 2016; Pope et al., 2014). The IDI is an example of one tool that can help individuals develop a healthy relationship with conflict and potentially move their approach to conflict from destructive to constructive. The use of the IDI in student conflict resolution and its potential impact on campus climate efforts more broadly has shown great merit in our IDI pilot experiences discussed in this chapter.

336   

sustainable innovation and transformation

Questions for Reflection and Dialogue 1. What role does intercultural competence play in my daily life and in my interactions with others? 2. In what areas do I recognize room for intercultural growth within myself? 3. What responsibility do I have in modeling intercultural competence in my work? With friends and family? 4. Think of a time that you have had a successful intercultural interaction. Try to remember as many details of this interaction as possible. How were you feeling? What was the context? What do you remember most about this interaction? a.  What do you believe made this interaction successful? Why? b.  Reflecting on this experience, what might you do differently to be more interculturally competent? c.  How did this experience make you feel? Did you experience any moments of uncertainty or discomfort? d.  Did this experience expose any areas for further understanding or growth about yourself or other people, places, or cultures? e.  What can you commit to do in order to ensure you have successful intercultural interactions in the future?

References American College Personnel Association & NASPA–Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. (2015). ACPA/NASPA professional competency areas for student affairs practitioners (2nd ed.). Authors. Cooper, D. L., Howard-Hamilton, M. F., & Cuyjet, M. J. (2011). Achieving cultural competence as a practitioner or faculty member: Theory to practice. In M. J. Cuyjet, M. F. Howard-Hamilton, & D. L. Cooper (Eds.), Multiculturalism on campus: Theory, models, and practices for understanding diversity and creating inclusion (pp. 401–420). Stylus. Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (2019). CAS professional standards for higher education (10th ed.). Author. Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241–266. Fantini, A. E. (2009). Assessing intercultural competence. The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence, 456–476. Hammer, M. R. (2011). Additional cross-cultural validity testing of the Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(4), 474–487.

culture, conflict, and student learning  

337

Hammer, M. R. (2012). The Intercultural Development Inventory: A new frontier in assessment and development of intercultural competence. In M. Vande Berg, R. M. Paige, & K. H. Lou (Eds.), Student learning abroad (pp. 115–136). Stylus. Hammer, M. R. (2013). A Resource Guide for Effectively Using the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI). https://idiinventory.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ Intercultural%20Development%20Inventory%20Resource%20Guide1.pdf Harris, J. C., & Linder, C. (2018). The racialized experiences of students of color in higher education and student affairs graduate preparation programs. Journal of College Student Development, 59(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1353/ csd.2018.0014 HESA Leadership Mission. (n.d.). https://wmich.edu/leadership/academics/edleadership/master/hesa/more-info Heyl, J. D., & Tullbane, J. (2012). Leadership in international higher education. In D. K. Deardorff., H. deWit,  J. D.Heyl,  T. Adams (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of international higher education (pp. 112–130). SAGE Publications. Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2004). Integrative learning: Mapping the terrain. The academy in transition. Association of American Colleges & Universities. Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI). (n.d.). IDI qualifying seminar. https:// idiinventory.com/idi-qualifying-seminar/ Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI). (2015, January 1). Why should you consider using the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI)? https://idiinventory .com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Why-Consider-The-IDI-01-01-2015.pdf Nienow, D., & Stringer, J. (2016). Valuing the role of conflict in organization enrichment. In G. S. McClellan, J. Stringer, & Associates (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (489–505). Jossey-Bass. Peet, M., Lonn, S., Gurin, P., Boyer, K. P., Matney, M., Taylor, S., Marra, T. & Daley, A. (2011). Creating integrative knowledge through ePortfolios. International Journal of EPortfolios, 1(1), 11–31. Perozzi, B., & Ramos, E. (2016). Student affairs and services in a global perspective. In G. S. McClellan, J. Stringer, & Associates (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (4th ed.) (pp. 113–131). Jossey-Bass. Pope, R. L., & Mueller, J. A. (2005). Faculty and curriculum: Examining multicultural competence and inclusion. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 679–688. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0065 Pope, R. L., Reynolds, A. L., & Mueller, J. A. (2014). Creating multicultural change on campus. Jossey-Bass. Robbins, C. K. (2016). White women, racial identity, and learning about racism in graduate preparation programs. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 53(3), 256–268. Runde, C. E., & Flanagan, T. A. (2012). Becoming a conflict competent leader: How you and your organization can manage conflict effectively. Wiley. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

338   

sustainable innovation and transformation

Schrage, J. M., & Thompson, M. C. (2008, June). Using a social justice model for conflict resolution to ensure access for all students. Paper presented at the Donald D. Gehring Academy for Student Conduct Administration, Salt Lake City, UT. Talbot, D. M. (1996). Master’s students’ perspectives on their graduate education regarding issues of diversity. NASPA Journal, 33(3), 163–178. Talbot, D. M. (2003). Multiculturalism. In S. R. Komives & D. Woodard (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (4th ed.) (pp. 423–446). Jossey-Bass. Taylor, K. B. (2008). Mapping the intricacies of young adults’ developmental journey from socially prescribed to internally defined identities, relationships, and beliefs. Journal of College Student Development, 49(3), 215–234. University of Michigan. (2016). Results of the 2016 University of Michigan student campus climate survey on diversity, equity and inclusion. https://diversity.umich. edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/DEI-STUDENT-REPORT-FINAL.pdf Watts, A. W. (1966). The book: On the taboo against knowing who you are. Pantheon. Williams, D. A., Berger, J. B., & McClendon, S. A. (2005). Toward a model of inclusive excellence in postsecondary education. Association for American Colleges & Universities.

15 KEEPING IT REAL Reflections on Inclusive Campus Leadership and Authentic Collaboration Tamara L. Greenfield King and Leah A. Merrifield A diverse mix of voices leads to better discussions, decisions, and outcomes for everyone. —Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google (Riel, 2017)

Introduction Campus leadership as a hierarchy can take many forms. Formal roles can include the governing board, the president, chancellor, provost, vice president of student affairs, deans of the academic schools or programs, or some prescribed combination. The title of “leader” comes with a tremendous level of responsibility and need for vision, character, ethics, societal and political acumen, and varied collaborations. Relationships exist both within the physical confines of the campus and externally with community stakeholders and partners. Most leaders are applauded for their ability to be ethical, fair, practical, communicative, people aware, and, certainly not last, phenomenal visionaries. They are often able to accurately predict positive and negative trends, garner support and respect from many diverse people, understand complex and critical issues, and address politically charged incidents that may directly impact the physical campus, community at large, and even disrupt higher education. The COVID-19 pandemic response and renewed demands for racial justice and police accountability offer significant cases in point. Clearly, being an inclusive campus leader for this generation of diverse learners goes well beyond traditional expectations. Roles include necessary collaborations with vast stakeholders including students; faculty; staff; parents; 339

340 sustainable innovation and transformation    donors; alumni; visitors to campus; the public; and international, national, and local agencies. Institutions of higher education have complex entangled relationships with a wide variety of people, places, and agencies. Shared internal challenges include everything from change and crisis management, recruitment and retention, social media, hazing, race relations, sexual misconduct, and student activism. External pressures that range from political influence and divisiveness to dealing with so-called “fake” news and a war on sciencebased evidence and facts further exacerbate the already heavy task of leadership. While the goal of colleges and universities remains the continued education and development of students over time, institutions of higher education have evolved into places of immense and necessary research, a stage for civil and sometimes not so civil discourse, living/learning communities, community leadership, and charitable outlets. It does not take long to recognize that being a leader at an institution of higher education is a daunting undertaking. Our careers as two senior leaders of color at predominantly White institutions provide authentic examples of the challenges and rewards of engaging in meaningful collaboration and striving for inclusive campus leadership. For several years, Leah Merrifield served as the special assistant to the chancellor for diversity initiatives at Washington University in St. Louis. At the time, it was a newly created role and one that reported directly to the highest level of the institution. The rewards were great and the challenges were many. From shaping strategy around diversity and inclusion to being in a position to advise the institution’s highest official, the position provided a rich opportunity to positively influence culture and practice at the university. These efforts were conducted in the context of regular interaction with other university leaders (both faculty and staff ) who were not always sold on the value of diversity and inclusion, were not keen to alter their long-standing policies and practices, and were certainly not accustomed to collaborating with or seeking advice from a woman of color. The key to any success truly stemmed from maintaining a laser-like focus on inclusion and collaboration. The start was the creation of a campus-wide Coordinating Council for Diversity Initiatives (CCDI), which was made up of leaders selected by the senior leadership of every university school and division. This provided the opportunity for representative voices to “be at the table.” The next step was to collect and evaluate the data, benchmarking where Washington University stood on a range of agreed-on metrics related to diversity. Next was awareness—helping the campus community understand why having a more diverse campus community was important and providing the context with other peer institutions. Then the CCDI members became the true ambassadors and champions of how you get the work done—providing opportunities for workshops and trainings, hosting formal

keeping it real  

341

and informal diversity and inclusion events, and laying the framework for accountability for these efforts. If leaders were unwilling or unable to “hear the message” from a woman of color, there were multiple other individuals from different backgrounds to help move the work forward. Moreover, sometimes leaders simply had to engage in uncomfortable conversations with a woman of color—and that was just fine, too. The end goal of a more inclusive and collaborative campus environment was the guiding star and a focus on that star proved critical to “moving the needle.” Tamara L. Greenfield King has had many opportunities to be the “first.” In 1992 she was the first African American assistant district attorney in Northampton County, Pennsylvania. In 2009–2010 she was the first woman of color to be elected president of the Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA, formerly Association for Student Judicial Affairs, ASJA). In that space, Greenfield King has had to navigate overt racism and sexism while advancing her agenda of inclusivity and true appreciation and practice of inclusive excellence. These lived experiences are full of examples of opportunities to educate the majority population about the inherent biases they bring to the table. In many cases, there was a lot of coaxing and coaching about why diversity, not just gender, race, or ethnicity, was critical to the conversation. One of the most salient characteristics of a collaborative and inclusive leader is their true understanding and valuing diversity of thought, perspective, and experience. There is no question that when one brings diverse perspectives to the table, ultimately this will lead to better outcomes. However, the true caution and caveat is that bringing diverse perspectives to the forefront is merely the first step. The true measure is whether the voices are heard, analyzed, considered, and valued in a genuine and authentic way. Consider for example, the value of embracing agency and bringing many voices to the table when furthering an institutional goal of innovative and sustained support for first-generation college students. In many instances, campus administrators meet, discuss programs and resources, and develop a strategic plan. However, inclusive leaders consider whether the administration includes any first-generation college students on the committee, in focus groups, or survey and data collection. Often, we naively believe that we know what is best for people, without ever involving and asking those most impacted what they want or need.

Higher Education Leadership in Complex Times The various stakeholders at institutions of higher education often simultaneously share compelling and competing priorities and challenge leaders

342 sustainable innovation and transformation    to do the Herculean task of acting quickly and collaboratively all while satisfying everybody at the same time, this when faced with the most complex and personally gut-wrenching challenges impacting campuses and the extended community today. There is not a more salient example in this publication than that of the unprecedented response to the COVID-19 pandemic shouldered uniquely by education leaders in 2020. With terms back in session and spring breaks in progress, campuses and our K–12 counterparts across the nation and globe wrestled in real time with independent and state-driven decisions to close residence halls, postpone and later move physical classes to online platforms, and navigate the uncharted waters of a world coming to grips with a relentless and often silent public health enemy. Another example involves enrolled students who have been afforded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status. Some universities have agreed to support DACA students regardless of their governmental immigration status with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, indicating they will enjoy the same treatments as any other students on campus (Wrighton, 2016). Former chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis, Mark S. Wrighton, took a bold risk when he stated, I wanted to take this opportunity to reinforce with you all that we have no higher priority than the safety, well-being and academic success of all of our students, faculty and staff-regardless of immigration status, race, ethnicity, nationality or any other identity. On this point we will not compromise. Our university must be a place where we draw strength through our differences, and where all feel welcomed, respected and included. As a community, we must vigorously encourage the open exchange of ideas and perspectives. These are our core values. We all must embrace them. (Wrighton, 2016)

At the same time, other campus leaders across the country may have decided on a safer, or at least less visible, course of action navigating the status of students identified as dreamers. Who is right? More importantly, is there a right answer? Should we rely on a one-size-fits-all model to manage one of the most pressing, divisive, and politically sensitive conflicts of our time? In addition, if we do, what then becomes of the ability to lead with vision, principle, wisdom, and inclusive excellence? We open this chapter with the DACA example and notice of the urgent and lasting impact of our COVID-19 response to contextualize the complexity and difficulty that institutions of higher education leadership face on a daily basis. There is a varied audience with a multitude of competing interests and instilling the true necessity of an inclusive and collaborative

keeping it real  

343

community is no small feat. It takes care, sensitivity, time, a desire to be better, and, most importantly, a leader and senior leadership team committed to infusing collaborative and inclusive governance for the betterment of the institutions of higher education. The capacity to ensure all voices are heard and considered in the institutions of higher education’s promulgation of vision, strategic goals, institutional priorities, and response to complaints of insensitivity (i.e., lack of various types of diversity, unequal access, and a lack of equity) should be considered critical to inclusive and collaborative leadership. When leadership does not operate from the all-voices-matter perspective, they are often appropriately referred to as engaging and perpetuating in discriminatory cultures, practices, and responses to incidents. Leadership in this context recognizes the fundamental need for effective, inclusive, institutionalized, tailored, proactive, and reactive approaches to complex issues. A failure of leadership to do so is failed leadership.

Standing Tall in a Shifting Landscape Over the last decade, most institutions of higher education have created positions uniquely structured to support diversity, equity, and inclusion. Common nomenclature includes chief diversity officer or vice president/ provost/chancellor of diversity, access, and equity. Many of these positions are considered key leadership positions on campus, as they serve very visible student and public-facing audiences. This senior leadership role can ironically make the assigned tasks more complicated and less effective. In some instances, they are responsible to the governing board, students, faculty, staff, parents, alumni, philanthropies, neighbors, business owners near campus, and public visitors and guests to campus. This lack of specified and direct targets of their work often creates uneven results; it is challenging to satisfy a wide array of constituents with often competing values, goals, and perspectives. Inevitably, someone will not be happy. Take, for example, the 2018 University of South Carolina search to replace a popular president upon his retirement with a successful incumbent. As the pool narrowed to four candidates, student-led protests erupted with calls to reopen the search. Concerns ranged from the lack of visible diversity in the final pool to perceived insensitivity by the leading finalist related to campus culture, alcohol, and sexual misconduct. He also lacked the required terminal degree. The decision was made to reopen the search and name an acting president. Students left and summer ensued. Soon after, the Republican governor, serving an ex-officio board role, called for a vote by the board of trustees and the leading finalist, a retired U.S. Army officer who served as the superintendent of West Point,

344 sustainable innovation and transformation    Robert L. Caslen Jr., was named the institution’s 29th president. Supporters celebrated the governor’s leadership while others voiced ongoing concerns about the overall search and selection process. While many concede that President Caslen has made a compelling effort in his first year to succeed in this new role, the troubled process continued to raise questions and accreditation concerns related to real and perceived political influence into 2020. Leadership by nature comes with a set of competing interests and values that must be continuously prioritized. Standing for justice amid mounting criticism and adversity takes fortitude, positional power, and allies. The U.S. civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s is a pivotal case in point that demonstrates the power of doing what is right and just in the face of great injustice and risk. It took creating awareness and finding allies among comfortably positioned leaders unable to recognize the injustices surrounding them given their own privilege. Except for historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), we know that institutions of higher education were not originally designed for nor to support people from diverse backgrounds. In fact, institutions of higher education, from their founding in the colonial era through the mid-20th century, have been premised on supporting hierarchies of gender, race, and socioeconomic status (Harris, 2015). Moreover, many early colleges and universities benefited from the ownership and exploitation of enslaved people, a history that is difficult and important to acknowledge. Institutions of higher education did not significantly open their doors to non-elites until the deployment of federally funded financial aid and the enactment of the GI Bill (The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944) after World War II. Given that the foundation for institutions of higher education was not designed for an inclusive population, it is no surprise that it has taken multiple decades to alter the exclusive landscape. Without the leadership that sustained the movement and created change that became law, the United States would not have successfully engaged in the process of addressing the well-documented history of oppressive and systematic racism and sexism in America. When leaders, including those who make their career in higher education, tackle difficult situations with care and vision, weighing multiple perspectives and stories even when their process or outcome is not initially popular, they begin to display characteristics of inclusive excellence. True leadership demands we challenge the status quo, genuinely question why the institution does what it does, weigh the intended and unintentional consequences of a decision, account for who may be negatively impacted by said decision, and commit to the role institutions of higher education might play in righting injustices. Policy, practice guidelines, legal precedent, and mandates provide additional context as a leader takes an inclusive view; actions cannot be myopic, singular, self-centered, or self-serving. Sybil Jordan Hampton, former president (retired) of Winthrop Rockerfeller Foundation,

keeping it real  

345

promoted the notion that brave, convicted individuals are necessary but not sufficient in the struggle to eliminate oppressive and unjust-isms. She advocated that organizational systems and cultures must change and that change process involves authentic and strategic collaboration with powerful policy makers and decision makers (Lowery & Hampton, 2019). Leadership is rarely practiced in isolation. Some institutions have created positions to segregate specific targets for their work. There may, for instance, be multiple people tasked with addressing and enhancing diversity at the institution or responding to sexual misconduct under Title IX. An institution might establish one central office but have multiple people dedicated for specific customers or constituents. They may hire staff with a specific focus on the student experience, one for faculty interactions and one to focus on staff engagement. No matter what the organizational chart looks like, one factor remains critical for success: The highest leadership of the institution of higher education must be fully invested and engaged in the pursuit of inclusive excellence. To do otherwise will cause appropriate criticism from students, with students and supportive allies holding the institution accountable for insincerity. Ill-conceived efforts to respond effectively to the most challenging campus issues of the day and empty initiatives that cannot be sustained in meaningful ways will be deemed inauthentic publicity stunts designed to increase institutional rankings and make the institution more appealing without real substance or commitment.

Moving Toward Reconciliation Measurable factors like institutional history, context, and culture are key factors to consider when working toward inclusive excellence and sustainable leadership. Institutions must be willing to wrestle with their often exclusive past, present, and future (Lomotey, 2010). The most poignant example of truth-telling and healing is found when an institution of higher education comes to terms with a history of real and symbolic racism, even the institution’s use of slaves in building the actual campus (Burton, 2011). Other examples of this reckoning include an honest analysis and principled consideration of the type of investments that feed endowments as well as research undertaken by an institution (Koh, 2014). All of these components influence perceptions of institutions. While one cannot wash away the past, they certainly must own it, learn from it, and not allow history to repeat itself. The University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill for over a century had the Silent Sam statute on its campus (Binder & Deconto, 2018). Alumnus Julian Shakespeare Carr spoke at the dedication of the statue in 1913 (Graham, 2018). It was a well-known fact that Julian Carr was a proud racist

346 sustainable innovation and transformation    (Binder & Deconto, 2018). For years, the University of North Carolina knowingly ignored the harm caused by displaying the statute. After years of activism and demands to remove what many found to be a symbol of a racist past, students toppled the statute on August 20, 2018 (Binder & Deconto, 2018). Demands and action to remove racist monuments, symbols, and building nomenclature continue to accelerate, propelled by the Black Lives Matter movement. Institution of higher education governing boards and presidents must stay tuned to the student voice. It would benefit many in leadership to remember the students pay tuition with an expectation that their education sits at the heart of the institutional mission. Swarthmore College provides another example in which leadership was compelled to give agency to the student voice. An activist student group identified as Coalition to End Fraternity Violence engaged in a student sit-in at two fraternities (Yancey-Bragg, 2019). The students were outraged at references in historic fraternity documents that contained racist, homophobic, and misogynist language (Yancey-Bragg, 2019). Swarthmore’s leadership had ultimately no choice but to be responsive to the voices of students and allies long concerned with an institutional history of racist, homophobic, and misogynistic culture and fraternity-related incidents, and the fraternities were disbanded. Leadership at institutions of higher education must be attuned to the student voice. They must be prepared to engage students in meaningful and authentic dialogue to address issues that arise, and at best they should have people and systems in place to manage and resolve conflict in ways that reduce and prevent destructive cycles of conflict in favor of trustworthy integrated systems of redress. Institutions faced with conflict that escalates into visible, targeted, angry, and sometimes destructive activism in the name of justice and change must entertain a number of questions. Ideally, these questions are firmly addressed even before conflicts flare so that shared community answers can guide response protocol. What are the established and published institutional values? Does the campus leadership and community at large truly believe in them? Do leaders ensure that whenever they address an audience, big or small, they talk about the institution’s commitment—and celebration of— diversity? Do they take the time to fully explain how their campus is different from others? Do they unapologetically state that certain behaviors will not be tolerated on their campus? Do they stand before any group of people and proclaim they are 100% on board with diversity, equal access, and equity? This must be the institution’s top priority: For leadership, albeit difficult at times, to not shy away from the institution’s absolute and essential set of educational values. These values are not controversial. Institutions of higher education generally have similar mission and vision statements that speak to educational excellence; ethical research and inquiry; freedom of inquiry, expression, and discourse; honesty; integrity; and civic engagement.

keeping it real  

347

Modeling Leadership for the Next Generation of Leaders Many students as educational consumers have already figured out that inclusive leadership is essential on their campuses. They demand that such leadership be consistently modeled. College students are becoming more emboldened to speak out when the institutional leadership does not reflect their own values, and while challenging, many administrators and educators applaud their passion and commitment to force the agenda when institutional decisions seem out of alignment with values related to fully operationalized diversity and inclusion. Each year we host leadership trainings, summits, conferences, and specialized student development sessions, all focused on giving students the tools to engage in purposeful activism. Do we really believe they are not listening to our sound student development advice? Box 15.1 provides an example from Temple University of an innovative campus and community partnership to build inclusive leadership. Students are mobilizing their peers and honing their advocacy skills to challenge institutions of higher education. They are unapologetically critical of their campuses’ leadership, whether by challenging a governing board that is not representative, noticing an elite status quo, taking on antiquated and unresponsive leadership, or calling out cultural insensitivity to diverse and marginalized students. Many students fully understand and appreciate the value of diversity and social change on their college campus. Many, but not all, senior leaders support these calls for change, even though they are left to grapple with the policies and politics of change.

BOX 15.1.

Case in Point

Inclusive Leadership Conference, Campus Philly One example of proactive leadership initiatives aimed at students and inclusive student engagement occurred on February 9, 2019, on Temple University’s campus in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Temple University students held an “Inclusive Leadership Conference, Campus Philly” (n.d.) open “for ALL Philadelphia-area college students.” The aim of the conference was simple, to strive “to build a better Philadelphia by giving college students from around the region the chance to enhance their leadership knowledge and skills through presentations, workshops, dialogues, and panels on topics related to inclusive leadership and social change” (para. 1). The 2019 conference focused on “how one can find, advocate, and teach others to find their voice” (para. 1)

348   

sustainable innovation and transformation

Extending Leadership Beyond the Campus and Engaging Community Partnerships Maintaining rewarding on- and off-campus partnerships requires commitment, flexibility, patience, and often a robust sense of humor. All sides must be willing to engage in active and deep listening. Jay McDaniel (2006), a philosopher and theologian at Hendrix College asserts “deep listening” occurs when we listen to others “on their own terms and for their own sakes . . . without trying to change them according to preconceived purposes” (pp. 26–27). A few recent examples of inclusive change initiatives, not the least of which were those triggered by the priority spring 2020 pandemic response to temporarily shift education online and close campuses, include Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 (2018), the Black Lives Matter national movement, environmental concerns with clean coal emissions reduction, and promoting that living wages be paid to institutions of higher education contract employees. Coupled with the examples provided, today’s university has become a welcoming place for first-generation, under-resourced students and families, and these students are provided with resources to secure their ability to not only attend college but also compete and graduate. No situation affects students in the same way. All these examples demonstrate the complex nature of being an inclusive and collaborative leader on a college campus. At the very least, there will always be at least two sides to an issue and often many more perspectives. As such, a leader having the fortitude to be sensitive and understanding to the various perspectives is important. Everyone cannot get their way or have their intended outcome. To believe one perspective will always prevail is naïve. Community-university collaborations that have proven to be successful reflect the elements mentioned. Examples of highly effective models include the University of Pennsylvania’s long-standing Netter Center for Community Partnerships, Michigan State University’s systemic approach that emphasizes the voices of community partners, as well as the more recent Washington University in St. Louis’s College Prep Program that demonstrates the university’s commitment to college access for local-area under-resourced students and their families. These and many other collaborations show that when higher educational institutions commit to authentic and inclusive partnerships with their local communities, all parties benefit. As our college campuses exist in concert with the local communities in which they reside, an equally important consideration is the extent to which the campus inclusivity efforts engage local K–12 and community education partners in helping to ensure the community’s student population is college

keeping it real  

349

and workforce ready. These off-campus/community collaborations are also a vital resource to our campuses because our student populations participate in life outside the campus walls and the community can provide excellent resources to extend student learning beyond the classroom. It is clear today’s students view the entire globe as their classroom. They are no longer confined to the brick-and-mortar facilities of their campus. Students come from hometowns all around the globe. They are shaped by international, national, and local events, which are instantly available via electronic mediums. There is no specific prescribed way of thinking. The very essence of diversity of thought is critically important. Many believe and would argue vehemently that our campus diversity, in all its forms, adds positively to the richness of the educational experience. Campus leadership should also think about the appreciation for diversity as a life skill. We cannot think of any career, profession, or employment situation where one’s peers will not be representative of diverse backgrounds.

Collaborative Leadership and Valuing All Voices Within this context, institutions of higher education should therefore be intentional and mindful in giving students exposure to, and ultimately appreciation for, the skill of fully and effectively engaging and valuing diversity. Campuses are full of opportunities for students to organically engage with others different from themselves. In this statement, we are intentionally including factors of diversity that are not commonplace. Some distinct examples include body size, childhood experiences, family educational levels, geographical differences, and experiences with government agencies. Envision a campus with intentional collaborations between unrelated offices. For example, the international student office and the residence life office collaborate to deliver experiences that honor diverse cultures in sleeping, food, business etiquette, studying habits, group dynamics, and clothing. Leadership should celebrate the wide array of diverse students on any given campus and ensure students are intentionally exposed to people unlike themselves. Students should be encouraged to increase their collaborations and intentionally interact with other students outside their comfort zone. Institutions of higher education are complex organizations with decision-making dispersed widely across the campus. For example, student affairs divisions take the lead on overall issues related to currently enrolled students while academic affairs departments and schools manage academic issues and community relations offices are tasked with building and maintaining relationships with external entities. All these efforts are necessary; however,

350 sustainable innovation and transformation    without a shared vision and a cohesive approach to access and inclusion, resources can end up duplicated or missed, and thus do a disservice to our student populations. “Without a systemic approach to partnerships, the chances of long-term collaboration—the kind needed to produce positive results in the communities—are diminished” (Ostrander, 2004, p. 75). Questions that must be addressed in institutions of higher education developing important K–12 and community collaborations include the following: Who should be involved, and to what extent? Are these long- or short-term collaborations? Are all parties clear about goals? The most ideal and sustainable collaborations ensure that all parties understand and benefit from the shared work. This process must ensure that there is agreement within organizations prior to engaging with external collaborators. This task is more difficult than it initially appears. An academic example demonstrates the competing interests that exist on any college campus. Let’s say the president promulgated that the institution must increase diversity in its faculty hiring. On its face, this appears to be a noble value. However, when an academic department is looking for an expert or scholar in a very specialized discipline, they may argue that the field of scholars is not diverse as rationale for its lack of diversity. They believe the goal is noble but that it cannot be achieved. If it is a research one (R1) institution, getting the top scholar becomes even more critical and sometimes to the detriment of other pro-diversity factors. Again, leadership must develop a plan that accomplishes competing goals. Seeming mutually exclusive goals can be accomplished, but it calls for creative thinking and not being afraid to buck conventional approaches to hiring faculty. This simple, yet realistic, dilemma illustrates that scenarios are not impossible to resolve but require a mind-set of thinking outside of the proverbial box. With an increasing number of diverse leaders in a multitude of functional areas on our campuses, organizations are better equipped to engage in these conversations regarding the needed support for and increasingly diverse student body with diverse needs. Examples already shared include first-generation and immigrant students as well as students with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status, international status, and/or under-resourced students. Many leaders have a shared background with the growing numbers of these students served and/or are culturally aware and sensitive to the issues these students face. These leaders appear open and more responsive to a wider array of community collaborations for not just student recruitment, but also for student support services, student engagement, and networking opportunities. These collaborations benefit all students who attend our institutions of higher education. When we provide opportunities for students to live, learn,

keeping it real  

351

and thrive with others from a wide range of backgrounds, we are better preparing them to be engaged citizens at home and across the globe. When we provide meaningful and thoughtful opportunities for local, under-resourced K–12 students to be consistently engaged in academic and enrichment on our campuses, the experience benefits not only the students but also the communities in which we reside. It provides the foundation for an adult life grounded in active civic engagement. Important and meaningful on- and off-campus collaborations and partnerships develop over time and must be attended to in a thoughtful manner in order to be sustained. Consider internally, who has a seat at the table? Are important key community and K–12 stakeholders being consulted? We run the risk of doing more harm than good if we do not take the time to ensure the critical voices are engaged. If authentic efforts are made in the establishment of partnerships and collaborations, all involved lessen the opportunity for conflict and misunderstandings down the road.

Making Space at the Real and Virtual Table We challenge leadership to think broadly. Ask, “Who may be impacted by a situation?” Then ensure that they are engaged in developing a response that is viable. Do not think a person does not have voice and value because they do not hold an executive leadership role. For example, consider a situation where students are complaining that a professor is not providing an inclusive classroom environment. Most leaders expect the investigation to include talking with the student complainants and maybe some other classroom students. That is only logical. An inclusive leader will consider speaking with the professor’s former students. Many classroom voices could be unintentionally silenced because they have not received their final grade for the course and may fear reprisal. Former students, however, will be able to speak freely about their experiences as they will have received their grade and are no longer vulnerable to being silenced by potential retaliation by the professor. Failure to give value to all voices may lead to essential information about the impact and harm being invisible. Consider also a meeting of 10 people. The inclusive leader will ensure that voices are not silenced, whether intentional or unintentional. Why bring 10 people together to hear the diversity of thought and then not provide for the free exchange of ideas and solutions? All too often people are not afforded an opportunity to voice how they truly feel about a given situation. Sometimes this comes from a fear of being perceived negatively,

352 sustainable innovation and transformation    as not being a team player, or as acting too aggressive. Having many identities represented allows a group to see things from multiple and diverse perspectives. All voices offer significant added value. Consider the composite scenario in Box 15.2 to further engage the interplay between institutional leadership and inclusive excellence.

BOX 15.2.

Case in Point

Consider a meeting called to address a sensitive and racially charged incident involving pledges of a historically White fraternity and a group of Black and Brown students. Offensive rap lyrics were sung by a White pledge. The students of color complained immediately to the administration. The lone person of color in the strategy meeting spoke about how marginalized the students of color must be feeling and that the chancellor, as senior university administrator, should respond in writing to the entire campus community. Another White member of the team was appropriately concerned about the optics of the situation and cautioned the chancellor could be expected to speak on every racial incident that occurs on campus. The lone person of color agreed but advised that this particular incident was likely to explode all over campus before the group concluded the meeting because the impacted students and their allies would expect him as their chancellor and the campus leader to address it. For over a week, the chancellor said nothing publicly about the incident. When a town hall was held concerning the incident, one of the very first questions from a student was “Where has the chancellor been during this entire ordeal? He thinks so little of this situation that he did not feel the necessity to address it sooner and publicly?” The lesson of this story is sometimes people from diverse backgrounds have a way of seeing things from a different perspective than their White counterparts. Silencing that genuine, empathetic, important, sensitive, and compassionate voice was a huge leadership mistake and caused a lot of harm that could have been avoided. As inclusive leaders, we must remember that sometimes our most important and best information is being held by the silenced voice in the room or in the community. Students were harmed and they most likely will not forget how the silence of leadership made them feel emotionally, forever impacting their personal connection to their alma mater.

keeping it real  

353

Conclusion While there is no singular characteristic for a leader to be considered collaborative or inclusive, there are certain qualities that help support such a distinction. Genuine and authentic engagement with people is critical. Good leaders make everyone feel included and that their voices are not only heard but also genuinely valued. They understand and appreciate the value of a diverse workforce, because it is not only fashionable but also the right thing to do and foundational to institutional excellence. Inclusive leaders understand that if they are not genuine, people will see right through them. They work hard to build their own multicultural capacity and develop the same competence and commitment in their team. There is no question that institutions of higher education have changed over the past decade. So have student expectations and demands. Students arrive on campus often with some expectation of being valued and heard, and so do their families. Incoming students may already be involved in social causes and the desire to change the world. They are quick to call out what they perceive as insensitive, discriminatory, unethical, and socially inappropriate issues. They are not afraid to shake up the administration and welcome the opportunity to have dialogue and discourse. The ability to engage people from all facets of the institution is an important skill, even (or especially) when they are persistent, passionate, and vocal. Ensuring everyone has a voice is necessary to achieve the best overall results. Coming together to make decisions collaboratively as a team will always produce better solutions than those conceived by individuals in a silo. Being inclusive and collaborative is more than inviting someone to the table; it is asking them to have voice and agency in the outcome. The work of inclusion and authentic collaboration never ends and should be woven into the fabric of every role in an institution. This work is not easy and sometimes it is not fun. It requires a level of intentionality that can be challenging to maintain. Leaders must ensure they are equipping staffs with the space and tools to engage in the work. That may include staff retreats with the sole focus being how we demonstrate inclusivity and diversity appreciation in all of our policies, processes, and engagements. Staff training and engagement could also involve required readings and dialogue for staff. These practices are constant reminders for all that this is an important topic that needs to be revisited so employees become comfortable with being vulnerable in their individual and shared efforts to embrace diversity. In this way, over time the inclusive and collaborative nature of our campus becomes commonplace, expected, and business as usual.

354   

sustainable innovation and transformation

There is reason to be hopeful. Institutions of higher education are changing in response to the needs and interests of an ever-growing population of diverse and eager learners as students remain engaged and vocal advocates for justice and as more senior faculty members and administrative officers partner with up-and-coming leaders and hold positions to influence policy change and concurrent shifts in climate and culture. The journey to realize inclusive excellence and true expressions of social justice on campus is hardly complete, but progress is being made and will continue, perhaps even at an unprecedented rate as the United States and our global counterparts recover and move forward with innovation triggered by the urgency of a pandemic response coupled with accelerated and amplified demands for full racial equity and inclusion.

Summary Chapter 15 concludes this collaborative publication as it launches a renewed and vigorous dialogue about lenses of justice and inclusive conflict excellence as applied to the practice of student conduct and conflict management in higher education. Contributors bring authentic lived experiences as women of color to the fore to lead shared advocacy for diversity and inclusion on campuses with deeply entrenched traditions of White and wealthy privilege and exclusion of the “other.” The tension we feel is the pull of change, in a landscape of shifting student demographics, service models, and an orientation to conflict that is destructive and divisive rather than constructive and rich with opportunity for people to come together. Students entering college in the future demand and deserve more responsive options to conflict and conduct resolution than procedural justice through overly formalized adjudication and risk management models that protect the institution of higher education and short every other lens across social, restorative, and transformational measures. Such an approach amounts to indifference, and we are not indifferent.

Questions for Reflection and Dialogue 1. What are the initial characteristics that come to mind when you think of an inclusive leader? 2. Identify someone on your campus that you deem a good role model for inclusive and collaborative leadership. Based on the person you selected, please answer the following:

keeping it real  

355

a.  Why do you believe they are inclusive and collaborative? b.  Is it their actions? c.  Is it their words? d.  Is it people’s reactions to them? e.  What can you learn from observing their leadership style? 3. Think of an interaction you had with a collaborative leader. Based on the interaction you selected, please answer the following: a.  How did it make you feel? b.  How did it make others in attendance feel? c.  Did others comment about the interaction? d.  What did they say? e.  Did you tell the leader about the interaction? f.  Did you tell others about the interaction?

Exercise Imagine that you are on the senior leadership team for the Division of Student Affairs at Institution of Higher Education X. You have four additional colleagues representing a very diverse leadership team. Each of you has six direct reports who represent various offices within the division. The students on your campus have been protesting the lack of diversity in the faculty and staff at Institutions of Higher Education X. The students have demanded that the senior administration have a faculty and staff that reflects the true diversity of the student body. One afternoon your supervisor approaches you and asks you to develop and lead the next professional development workshop on “Promoting Diversity in the Division of Student Affairs.” It will be a mandatory training for all staff within the division at every level. 1. Where do you begin? 2. What are your goals for the workshop? 3. What topics will you include? 4. Whom will you bring to the figurative table? Why? 5. Whom will you exclude from the table? Why? 6. What format will you utilize for your session? 7. What are your professional goals? 8. What are your personal goals? 9. How will you address staff who challenge your workshop or its usefulness? 10. Will you be comfortable with this presentation? Process that awareness.

356   

sustainable innovation and transformation

References Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA). (2015). ASCA Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Action Plan Task Force. https://www.theasca.org/files/ Task%20Force%20Charge%20FINAL%202.pdf Binder, A., & Deconto, J. J. (2018, August 21). Silent Sam’ Confederate statute pulled down in North Carolina. New York Times. https://www.nytimes .com/2018/08/21/us/unc-silent-sam-monument-toppled.html Burton, N. (2011, May 25). Colleges Come to Terms With Slave-Owning Pasts. The Root. https://www.theroot.com/colleges-come-to-terms-with-slave-owningpasts-1790864086 Graham, D. A. (2018, August 21). The dramatic fall of Silent Sam, UNC’s Confederate monument. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/ 2018/08/silent-sam-confederate-monument-unc-chapel-hill/568006/ Harris, L. M. (2015, March). The long, ugly history of racism at American universities. The New Republic. https://newrepublic.com/article/121382/forgottenracist-past-american-universities Inclusive Leadership Conference, Campus Philly. (n.d.). https://campusphilly.org/ leadership/ Koh, M. (2014). Thirteen instances of unethical human experimentation performed in the United States. Thought Catalog. https://thoughtcatalog.com/michaelkoh/2014/12/read_about_human_experimentation/ Lomotey, K. (2010). Predominantly White Institutions. Encyclopedia of African American Education (pp.523–526). SAGE Publications. Lowery, K., & Hampton, S. J. (2019). Surviving shunning at Central High School: Lessons from Sybil Jordan Hampton for social justice leaders. Journal of School Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052684619884770 McDaniel, J. (2006). In the beginning is the listening. In D. K. Ray (Ed.), Theology that matters: Ecology, economy, and God (pp. 26–41). Fortress Press. Ostrander, S. A., (2004). Democracy, civic participation, and the university: A comparative study of civic engagement on five campuses. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 33(1), 74–93. Riel, J. (2017). Tolerance is for cowards. Quartz at Work. https://qz.com/ work/1111746/tolerance-is-for-cowards/ Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944. Pub. L. 346, 268, § 1767 (1944). https:// www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=76&page=transcript Wrighton, M. S. (2016, December 5). A message from Chancellor Mark S. Wrighton. The Source. https://source.wustl.edu/2016/12/message-chancellormark-s-wrighton/ Yancey-Bragg, N. (2019, May 1). Swarthmore fraternities disband after student protests over document referencing “rape attic.” USA Today. https://www.usatoday .com/story/news/nation/2019/05/01/swarthmore-fraternities-disband-rapeattic-document/3646983002/

AFTERWORD Nancy Geist Giacomini and Jennifer Meyer Schrage Do not get lost in the sea of despair. Be hopeful, be optimistic. Our struggle is not the struggle of a day, a week, a month, or a year, it is the struggle of a lifetime. Never, ever be afraid to make some noise and get in good trouble, necessary trouble. —Congressman John Lewis (1940–2020)

Introduction The spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) approach is essentially an integrated system of doing things if practices are uprooted from foundations of social and restorative justice and process co-opts purpose. The same might be said about any system. Still, it is a counter intuitive conclusion to 15 chapters of advocacy for expanded conduct resolution options and inclusive conflict excellence that trades a myopic lens for more robust expressions of social, restorative, transformative, and procedural justice. Suffice it to say, this was not the afterword we imagined. Nothing upends a good draft manuscipt quite like a pandemic followed closely by the tipping point of a historic social justice movement. The second edition of Reframing Campus Conflict moved into final production in pace with the COVID-19 pandemic, as too quickly and too slow we came to understand that the story of this generation of learners, together with our own, includes bearing witness to a century-defining global health crisis response. International and domestic border enforcement, social distancing, stay-at-home orders, and personal protective equipment (PPEs) were not even on the periphery of campus life when we set to work on our updated anniversary edition. Neither were they on the radars of most college students setting out for spring breaks. A new shared awareness followed the casualty numbers of who is deemed essential and who was not, though arguably this sorting by identity has been with us all along. It is not a coincidence that unprecedented mass community action to eradicate systems and symbols that perpetuate racism and exploited power has escalated at the same time the coronavirus exacts disproportionate lives lost in Black and Brown communities. George Floyd’s May 2020 murder under the knee of a White police officer, together with the murders of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, Rayshard Brooks, and Tony McDade, add still more names to the ever-evolving list of those killed by racism and provided a long simmering ignition point for unprecedented condemnation, 357

358 afterword    action, and an international movement for racial justice and systemic police reform that even the risk of exposure to COVID-19 could not quell. The call for transformative justice has taken center stage. At this important moment, the higher education community approaches its own reckoning and a call to address systemic inequities in conduct and conflict management on campus. Relevant to this community conversation and informing this important work is Reframing Campus Conflict’s ongoing advocacy for inclusive excellence across social, restorative, transformative, and procedural measures. Of these unprecedented times, there is no doubt history will take note of warnings quelled and fears politicized across this interdependent set of cultural crises. Nevertheless, for now and into the foreseeable future, we will continue to work our way out from under the long shadow of both a racist legacy and a silent viral enemy that exposes leaders for their strengths and weaknesses in stark relief; casts existing protocols and systems as glaringly inadequate and obsolete; and stretches capacity to reach, teach, and learn. Here in a world oddly confounded by the light newly cast on our existential interdependence, our manuscript waited in line behind priority decision making and forecasting, risk, and trauma response, all 6 feet apart.

What is Essential A crisis, not unlike conflict, sorts what matters from what is in the way, where being safe and fed on a human needs hierarchy and making rudimentary meaning on the way to fully integrated knowledge acquisition intersect and take precedent over the higher-ordered luxuries of creation, inspiration, and aspiration. Here we paused to ask, is this work essential or just academic aspiration? What do we hold as essential—those necessary and unwavering common foundations concealed under ordered ways of doing things? What is left when foregone systems are shaken to their core and begin to fall like dominos, exposing both weaknesses and opportunity while letting in the light? Like any system, what happens, when we set aside our own spectrum pathways to revisit the essence of our purpose? Beverly Daniel Tatum’s (1997/2017) metaphoric moving walkway used to describe ongoing cycles of racism guides us to familiar answers as it accelerates even as the world stands still to let illness pass. The truth in our work is found where being essential in the context of a pandemic or engaging with police both result in added risk and comorbidity for communities of color. Here, preexisting conditions are reduced to the common denominator of access instability, rather than how it shows up as disease and death rates. Students are brought together as equals under campus diversity rubrics and

afterword  

359

are then abruptly sent home to vast economic and resource differences. At the same time laborers and health care workers are deployed to the front lines of care without earnest protection, Black people are killed by police while sleeping in their homes, and prison populations wait. The world may have stilled, but the work of reconciling inequity with inclusive excellence is as raw and purposeful as ever, at once disappointing and affirming. Shining a light on inequity is essential, not mere aspiration—though arguably, it is both. It is the bedrock of inclusive expressions of justice and peace, without which we seek and never realize individual and shared human potential. Reckoning inequity affirms our purpose even as we make space for common trauma and loss; it holds us accountable and creates obligations, which are common principles across both restorative justice and truth and racial healing. A reckoning requires acknowledgment, reconciliation, collaboration, learning, and a recalibrated transformation that reframes old ways to better align impact and intent. The gift of a crisis is that it exposes what is essential and makes it urgent.

Forecasting a New Student Life Normal The urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic is less than a year old and an insidious new part of our shared human existence. Our racist past cuts deeper still. Educators across domestic and international communities have faced down risk and cancelled in-person classes with a quick emergency transfer of curriculum online; short term, sporadic, or indefinite, we do not yet know. If this is short term, sporadic, or indefinite, we do not know. Zoom is now a household word as competitors expand the market of meeting online. So are accelerated loss and escalated civic action. In the scope of student affairs practice with responsibilities in conduct, conflict, and change management, spring caseloads have long been cleared and systems audited, a rare and unwelcome consequence of vacant campuses and emptied classrooms. In the meantime, new cases raise new questions that do not fit existing tools and protocol. What to do with the student still awaiting adjudication? When on-campus residences are closed to all, what is to be done about the student facing an outcome rubric that standardizes suspension from housing when housing is closed to all? How to respond when widespread cheating is indicated from remote learning spaces by stretched new online learners with easy access to all the answers? What to say when a hacked online Zoom celebration for students of color moves racial slurs and hateful imagery online? How do we balance individual rights and freedom of expression with the necessity of facial coverings and social distancing? After the corona themed send-offs enjoyed by many as a way to hold fear

360 afterword    and uncertainty at bay, we are left with new and urgent questions that hold trepidation alongside opportunities for responsive change. Necessity is the mother of invention, even as Mother Earth asks that we take a time out and sit for a spell in our corners. Speculating on what lies ahead as we conclude this second edition is like posting spoilers for a surreal movie stalled in production. The truth is, we do not know, as we continue to respond in real time to the interrelated pandemics of racism and COVID-19. An unprecedented national and global social justice uprising continues to shift rapidly and long-held assumptions, like outdated relics inspired by a racist past, are being dismantled. Real change related to sustainable, equitable human and civil rights seems inevitable, although its breadth and depth are yet to be determined. A century-defining pandemic in turn, shakes our sense of equilibrium and wellbeing differently, and we are only beginning to understand the long-term public health, economic, and social consequences to come. Bevins et al. (2020) represent a progressive framework in Coronavirus: How Should US Higher Education Plan for an Uncertain Future?, which includes “three broad epidemiological and public-health scenarios” (para. 2). The first and most hopeful scenario suggests that by the time our first readers pick up a copy of this work, the COVID-19 pandemic will be contained, and we will be entertaining a new normal with largely mitigated and manageable consequences. The second scenario plays out the possibility of a new school year with recurring COVID-19 flare ups both domestically and abroad that continue to restrict travel and necessitate periodic social distancing as we learn and work from home in online formats. In the third and most dire prediction, interdependent systems of virus containment and mitigation falter and fail, inequitable losses across means and identity grow deeper, and the chasm between not just educational persistence and attrition but universal human wellbeing and survival widen. In this uncertain landscape, dozens of scenarios for how and whether to resume and sustain in-person learning continue to be vetted to anticipate continued social unrest and mitigate ongoing economic and health risks. While we do not know whether activism will escalate or which pandemic scenario will prevail, we do know that reasoned, resilient, and sustainable responses will rest on informed and inclusive theoretical foundations, science and data, and acts of hope and expressions of trust introduced earlier as essential to inclusive conflict excellence. Crisis responsiveness shares constructs with conflict responsiveness, this is not new ground. What is unique to the global activism for racial justice paired with the COVID-19 crisis and conflicts spawned is that we are all presented with the same new awareness and opportunities at the same time, an unwitting critical mass of wokeness and new agency for interconnected systemic change.

afterword  

361

Reengaging the Decision Matrix in a New Landscape of “Insubordination” “Harnessing the spirit of insubordination,” the problematic Jeffersonian quote referenced in the original student conduct model by Ed Stoner and Kathryn Cerminara (1990), was meant to convey the nature of the student/ college relationship. While reining in subordinates with institutional power is the antithesis of inclusive conflict excellence, we give a nod to the undeniable ingenuity of spirited learners across generations who make what the late John Lewis named “good trouble” by navigating and inspiring change with endless curiosity, boundary testing, passion, and impatience—including the Black youth who perched on counter stools and marched the streets for civil rights in the 1960s, as well as those protesters in Lafayette Park who endured tear gas in 2020. We do not know what the long-term implications of a global racial justice movement together with a shared pandemic response will be. We know only that learning from this opportunity over the temptation of responses rooted in unsustainable control and punishment orientations is a prerequisite to moving forward. In chapter 1 we introduced Schrage’s decision matrix to engage and learn from complex variables found in student conflict and conduct cases as well as broad change management and policy decisions through essential invariable lenses of inclusive excellence. These criteria are essential as educational communities true to their core values push back against the urge to enlist authority, control, and dualistic thinking triggered by high stakes decision-making in times of threat to resources, time, and safety. We see this in leadership that labels elderly peaceful protesters injured by police “fascist,” and in the priority attention given to emerging compliance policies designed to control the COVID-19 risk with swift and punitive sanction mandates. We also see it in the false duality that frames unrest as “riots” and positions health and economy as independent actors both on campus and across the nation. Leveraging inclusive conflict excellence across diverse perspectives is necessary now more than ever if a new and transformed normal is to be centered like the resolute eye of a storm, at the intersection of nostalgia for the way things used to be and the necessity of making old models obsolete by building better ones (Buckminster Fuller, n.d.). This is the educational mandate at hand. In this strange new cultural landscape, many anticipate that remote learning, teaching, and administration will continue in some fashion, whether as a failsafe or a new normal now that change has been ignited. With this, we must also anticipate, learn from, and account for continued individual and institutional economic challenges, an overall compromised

362 afterword    sense of wellbeing, and tandem expressions of student (and faculty and staff ) conflict and conduct into the foreseeable future. A synthesized sampling of emerging conflicts cropping up across the United States invites new consideration through our inclusive conflict excellence lenses of procedural, social, restorative, and transformative justice: 1. Disruptive incidents of “Zoombombing,” especially those inspired by racism and nationalism, threaten to compromise a secure and constructive online learning venue. 2. Students are increasingly being reported for alleged cheating. These reports are coming out of classes where integrity policies, honor codes, and good faith expectations cannot keep pace with new and tempting gray area opportunities to over-collaborate or exploit open and online note sources. For many students, these incidents are exacerbated by lost hope, relentless, anxiety, and uncertainty that the course, grade, or degree even matter anymore. 3. Administrators conducting 2019–2020 conduct case audits from home offices discover that many students have failed to complete required educational sanctions (papers, alcohol seminars, etc.). Existing policies identify this lapse as failure to comply with a common, escalated sanction protocol. 4. International borders remain closed hindering international students from returning to campuses, and identity-based acts of harassment and violence are triggered when COVID-19 is framed as the fault of another country. 5. Students participate in a synchronous class with alcohol visible in the camera frame. When confronted, they disclose that they have had to default on their financial obligations as the unemployment rate soars and their family faces imminent bankruptcy and homelessness. 6. A student of color consistently fails to complete online coursework despite prompting by her White instructor. The instructor is now frustrated and threatening to post a failing course grade. The grade will compromise her scholarship. When meeting remotely with a trusted adviser, the student acknowledges that she is “not okay” but is reluctant to name her trauma as someone who identifies with the Black Lives Matter actions in the news across the country and world. 7. A respondent asks to delay pending adjudication related to sexual harassment despite policy-defined timelines until in-person procedures can resume. They cite a lack of privacy or technology access from home.

afterword  

363

8. Social distancing protections are abandoned by roommates in shared living spaces on and off campus, prompting conflict and conduct related reports and requests for action from students, families, neighbors, and landlords and renewed fear about the spread of the novel coronavirus. 9. A student fails to account for time zone differences and mistakenly schedules an online exam for 2:00 a.m. A proctor with full access to the student’s laptop and view of the test taking space is required. The student’s remote “classroom” is on their bed and this level of transparency and access triggers feelings of ­vulnerability and anxiety exacerbated by the post-traumatic stress suffered as a survivor of past sexual abuse. 10. First year students defer admission in record numbers rather than face the health risk of a secondary crisis, compromised social activities, or another midterm disruption while cancelled standardized tests and compromised prospective campus visits disrupt admissions cycles into the future. In the meantime, residence halls do not open at capacity and the off-campus housing market suffers forfeited leases, bankruptcy, and closures, leaving some students with nowhere to go and others on the hook for expensive off-campus annual leases and nothing to do. 11. On campus roommates misinterpret the meaning of public spaces or disregard facial mask mandates altogether, prompting fear, conflict, and retaliation. This list will continue to grow as we roll out uncharted educational plans into the foreseeable future and students contend with variations of a new normal.

Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic intertwined with renewed cultural awareness about racial inequity is both a catastrophic event and a cataclysmic opportunity for great change. Like conflict, how we make meaning of the events and navigate our responses will make the difference between an overall destructive, even tragic, set of ongoing outcomes or a tipping point for a constructive systemic transformation. Catastrophe is measured not only in illness and loss of life but also by negative cultural, social, and economic impact. Fear and scarcity are historic drivers for conflict, bias, and harm. Early in the

364 afterword    pandemic, we witnessed these dynamics across the United States and on college campuses alike. The consequences of vilifying and excluding a suffering nation from the presidential pulpit by dubbing a shared threat with an inaccurate and racially charged term have proven particularly painful and dangerous for international students from China and neighboring countries, and reports of harassment and assault fueled by bigotry continue. Likewise, amid Black Lives Matter activism, national leadership tweeted defense of Confederate flags and support for militia style intervention. Fear and scarcity also continue to influence increased polarization likely to overflow on campus as the pandemic inspires institutional calls for new compliance mandates and swift punitive disciplinary responses to behavior that risks community spread outbreaks of the virus. Higher education institutions weathered a primary crisis management response only to face the necessity of a secondary and ongoing response to the significant and potentially long-term social and financial implications of closed and compromised campuses. The ripple effect will span years and the road to recovery will be long. Still, cataclysmic events also inspire necessary realignment, innovation, and collaboration. This is fertile ground for the work of inclusive conflict excellence. Never has restorative, social, transformative, and procedural justice been more relevant to the campus community conversation. Our profession stands at a crossroads, on truly unprecedented magic real estate. A step toward the complexity of the spectrum model (Schrage & Thompson, 2008) approach to conflict and conduct management on foundations of social and restorative justice is a move toward the essence and heart of educational enterprise. Our systems must model core values and common justice foundations. They no longer do, and maybe they never did. In this fragile moment, it is essential that we revisit our purpose as we transform the meaning of community by turning toward restoration over punishment, inclusion over exclusion, education over legalism, and transformation over the dysfunctional status quo. In the wake of this disruption and shift in our practice, we have a chance to fundamentally transform systems in necessary and improved partnership with units inside and outside our division and beyond our campus boundaries. The crisis of a pandemic and the activism that demands racial justice and deep lasting change have implications that will continue to test higher education for years to come together with all other interdependent systems (K–12, health care, juvenile and criminal justice, etc.) in place to raise up and graduate productive, healthy global citizens. This is the moment along the civil and human rights trajectory, and in our chosen profession, that we must each make a choice. Either we commit ourselves as visible, vulnerable, and sustained allies for systemic and

afterword  

365

interpersonal change and truth-telling, or we remain complicit bystanders. Either we leverage partnerships, power, and privilege for transformation and a reimagined future so that the next generation of learners will know both justice and peace, or we perpetuate the same violence and injustice that led to the murder of George Floyd. This moment offers faculty, staff teams, and campus leadership increased, affordable, and on-demand access to not only online curriculum delivery but also online mediation, restorative justice, and other training. This moment also provides campuses with the motivation to embrace new intake systems and technology to deconstruct structural determinism in student conflict and conduct management. To stop short of inclusive innovation with the simple move of a desk, addition of a barrier, and spacing of chairs to accommodate social distancing upon our students’ return is to squander the opportunity before us. With intentionality and strategy, the years ahead as marked forever by the unprecedented events of 2020 will be remembered as a remarkable catalyst for change that paved the way to a sustainable and innovative shift to student centered practices both aspirational and essential. In these times, there will continue to be reason to act with urgency and strategy alike as new information comes at us quickly and without precedent. When this happens, it is natural and even necessary to assert independent problem-solving and decision-making that trades collaboration for timeliness, as was often the case in the rush of spring 2020. This is a situational and reasoned response that can be checked with renewed and ongoing inclusive dialogue, assessment, and evaluation as we prioritize and integrate lessons learned over the need for control. As our knowledge base grows and our COVID-19 responses continue to prevent and respond to new COVID-19 clusters in the way of a safe and sustained return to full in-person community-building again, we regain the opportunity to take the time needed to collaborate strategically in ways that better balance results with relationships and intent with impact. This moment in time has been given to us at great cost. It is our responsibility to use it for good. What has come into full 20/20 view in this new and changing normal is the consequence of tragic inequities and injustices easier to conceal but no less obvious pre-pandemic. It took longer than the 10 years between the first and second editions of our book and longer still since civil rights leaders as youth demanded a visible place of respect, for humanity to not look away. While we did not invite the novel coronavirus in, the urgency is not unwelcome as it has made space for a universal need to shift a myopic perspective toward more robust and inclusive lenses, an ignition moment to reframe and transform educational and extended communities of learners into better versions of ourselves so that we might build

366 afterword    trust, promote justice, and teach peace in step with inclusive conflict excellence and entrust our stewardship and allyship to the next generation.

Questions and Case Studies for Ongoing Reflection and Dialogue in a “New Normal” We introduced Schrage’s decision matrix (see Table 1.1 and Table 1.2) as a useful dialogue and decision-making tool as institutions process cases, conduct system reviews, and facilitate dialogue around policy initiatives and innovation. Arguably, having individuals, teams, institutions, and higher education as a whole, weigh responses and policies through the inclusive conflict excellence lenses of restorative, social, procedural, and transformative justice has not been this important since civil rights student activists including those who gifted us with their story in the preface, were turned out of their beloved Alabama institution. The hurt and harm these students endured as represented in St. John Dixon’s quoted content, and the story told by Eleanor Moody-Shepherd and James McFadden, is as palpable today as ever. As Black students speaking truth to power, the message they received was clear: They did not matter. It took a court case to suggest otherwise, and even then, a hoped-for restorative message of care was lost over many years to codified campus due process within systems of existing inequity, under the watch of those gaining privilege from and quite comfortable with the power structures in place. The decisions and outcomes that lie ahead will have individual and systemic consequences for years to come. Stakes, tensions, and risks are high, all triggers for simplistic over elegant solutions imposed by the powerful and enshrined as policy. Thus is the course of structural determinism, in which exclusion from places of learning will remain our priority punishment of choice. We have a choice, as did H. Councill Trenholm, the president of Alabama State College, and the State of Alabama Board of Education, led by Governor John M. Patterson. The question remains: What we will do with it on the threshold between transformation and status quo?

Case #1: A Retrospective Case Analysis Campuses across the United States were faced with reuniting students with personal items left behind in campus residences closed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Continued travel and social distancing challenges restricted in-person campus returns at end of term, necessitating an unprecedented wide-scale need for pack and ship/store options. Challenges included

afterword  

367

cost and logistics and policy violations like underage alcohol possession, paraphernalia, and weapons that were discovered during the packing process. As an exercise in retrospect, what decisions were made on your campus about cost, logistics, choice, and violation management? When plotting each of these decisions viewed through inclusive procedural, restorative, social, and transformation justice considerations, how does intent and impact measure up? What would you do differently to bring decisions into inclusive alignment? How will you prepare for subsequent emergency closings informed by inclusive lenses?

Case #2: Reimagining Private Conversation in Virtual Spaces in Real Time Moving private and confidential conflict and conduct resolution practices and processes like adjudication and related sexual misconduct investigation protocol, mediation, restorative conferences, coaching, and facilitation into secure and meaningful online platforms has been an ongoing interest. The COVID-19 pandemic makes it essential. Your institution must draft a set of transferable guidelines that bridge in-person to online facilitated meetings, conferences, and hearings. Develop concise language informed across procedural, social, restorative, and transformative justice lenses. Recognizing that higher education is not alone in raising questions regarding the move to online learning and work, campus teams are introduced to the International Council for Online Dispute Resolution’s (2020) free and downloadable Video Mediation Guidelines to prompt additional content under your purview. The guidelines address the following questions: (a) Are available and emerging process options fully accessible? (b) What capacity-building is needed? (c) How will we address and guard privacy and confidentiality and mitigate vulnerability? (d) What does it look like to facilitate a remote multipartial process perceived as fair and just? and (e) How do we implement and anticipate security issues that threaten to upend processes?

Case #3: Restorative Tiered Behavior Policy Development in a New Landscape In a pandemic the very measures necessary for community safety take precedent over individual rights. For many campus leaders, the key to students’ safe return to campus is implementing revised behavior response policies and protocols that facilitate compliance with strict social distancing mitigation measures and expedited intervention and isolation or exclusion, if

368 afterword    necessary. These same measures invite unrest as students (as activists) may contest invasive social distancing disciplinary action via protest, litigation, and civil liberties challenges. How might campuses develop new or revised policy language and protocols that deliver on restorative and social justice commitments and show genuine care without violating procedural justice and risk management priorities? In the face of these challenges, your institution is asked to consider a proposal for a restorative tiered solution modeled after approaches to minor alcohol and other drug (AOD) violations on some campuses: Tier One Response (no disciplinary record filed) = First time reports of minor violations of social distancing policy. Students receive an educational letter advising them that a concern has been raised, reminding them of applicable policies and information about the purpose of those policies and cautioning against future community behavior that might trigger a Tier Two and Tier Three response. Tier Two Response (no disciplinary record filed) = Multiple reports of violations of social distancing policy. Students receive an educational letter advising that multiple concerns have been raised and inviting them to participate in an online educational offering or a confidential restorative in-person or online dialogue to review the purpose behind the policies along with the potential for personal and community harms when safety practices are not followed. Students exercising this option receive “amnesty.” Tier Three Response (disciplinary record filed if student found to be responsible) = Multiple and/or egregious incidents reported as violations, indicating significant risk of harm to self and others. The matter is referred to adjudication under the discipline policy (student may elect informal or formal pathway). Appropriate and restorative educational interventions are assigned as deemed appropriate if student is found responsible. Discuss the possible benefits of prioritizing educational approaches and information-sharing that encourages cooperative student engagement through “amnesty” and whether they outweigh any critique by stakeholders desiring swift punishment through traditional legalistic lenses in the name of campus safety and risk management. What are the alternative risks of taking a hardline approach and adjudicating all social distancing violations as formal discipline cases?

afterword  

369

Case #4: Rebranding Racism Among the accelerated cultural shifts prompted by the re-energized Black Lives Matter movement in 2020 is that of symbolic change. Across the United States, monuments to the Confederacy have come down, sometimes violently, after years of unsuccessfully lobbying to peacefully do away with public celebrations of a racist past. Similar acts have occurred on campuses across the nation. Campus buildings named to honor racist figures from the past are also being renamed as an important nod toward evolving racist campus cultures, this as the U.S. leadership opposes the similar recasting of military bases named for soldiers with a celebrated racist past. In sports, longtime mascots viewed to make mockery of or mischaracterize Native American people are under renewed scrutiny; the Washington Football franchise, after years of pressure, finally abandoned its racist nomenclature. High school teams have followed suit, with far smaller budgets to rebrand ­everything from uniforms and swag to stadiums and fields. As a member of a venerable institution with deep southern roots, you are part of the leadership team that must respond with urgency to several #BLM demands to eradicate racist symbolism on your campus in ways that show an authentic commitment to lasting cultural and systemic change. The number one demand is to change the decades old mascot representing the institution that some but not all view as both sexist and racist. The decision of whether to replace the beloved (to some) mascot will have widespread financial and public relations implications across diverse stakeholders.

Case #5: The Counter Students of color refuse to leave the counter of a local eatery when they are denied service for reportedly not properly wearing facial coverings as required by campus and community COVID-19 protocol. A faculty member in the restaurant reports the incident to the police and is called a “Karen” by several of the students, a derogatory term for a rude, interfering White woman. The police arrive and are perceived by the students to escalate the incident with threats of arrest and physical force to remove them from the restaurant. Ultimately, the students are permitted to leave. They are banned re-entry into the restaurant and an incident report is filed on campus. Cell phone videos supporting both sides of the conflict rapidly go viral and the university quickly finds itself faced with a public relations crisis centered on both racial tension and public health. The institution’s president determines that interim suspension is on the table as an immediate response, based on mounting media coverage and a zero-tolerance policy adopted by the school

370 afterword    for gatherings by students who do not wear protective masks in public. If enacted, you would be responsible for carrying out an interim suspension order. You also have authority over investigations and protecting the integrity of the campus conduct and conflict resolution process. You are presently working remotely due to the pandemic. What do you do?

References Bevins, F., Bryant, J., Krishnan, C., & Law, J. (2020, April 3). Coronavirus: How should US higher education plan for an uncertain future? McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/coronavirushow-should-us-higher-education-plan-for-an-uncertain-future International Council for Online Dispute Resolution. (2020). Video mediation guidelines. https://icodr.org/guides/videomed.pdf Schrage, J. M., & Thompson, M. C. (2008, June). Using a social justice model for conflict resolution to ensure access for all students. Paper presented at the Donald D. Gehring Academy for Student Conduct Administration, Salt Lake City, UT. Stoner, E. N., & Cerminara, K. L. (1990). Harnessing the spirit of insubordination: A model student disciplinary code. Journal of College and University Law, 17(2), 89–121. Tatum, B. D. (1997/2017). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria: And other conversations about race. Basic Books.

EDITORS AND CHAPTER CONTRIBUTORS

Editors Nancy Geist Giacomini (she/her) is an educator, mediator, and systems consultant whose teaching, publications, and advocacy have transformed student conduct and conflict management practice for over 3 decades. She provides online adjunct graduate instruction, subject matter expertise, and doctoral candidate mentoring and is a veteran mediator of special education disputes with the Pennsylvania Office for Dispute Resolution. She earned her doctorate in educational leadership from the University of Delaware while a conflict resolution program associate in the Institute for Public Administration, where she served as a statewide mediator and graduate practicum instructor for student affairs practice in higher education. Her career includes over a decade as assistant dean of students at the University of Delaware, where she managed the Student Conduct office; piloted the Student Government Mediation program; chaired the Appeals Board, Council for Judicial Affairs, and Sexual Assault Awareness Weeks; and was awarded the Institutional Award for Women’s Equity. Giacomini recently served as interim student conduct and Title IX respondent case manager and grievance adviser for Swarthmore College. She is a credentialed expert across conflict coaching, group facilitation, mediation, restorative practices, victim-offender conference facilitation, due process, Title IX, and ombudsperson roles. Giacomini is an award-winning leader in the Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA) with board of director roles culminating in a 3-year turn as president. She pioneered the integration of conflict resolution, mediation, restorative justice, and inclusive excellence principles and practices into traditional student conduct professional development programs offered by the association in roles as conference chair, training institute program chair, and faculty. Giacomini founded the Community of Practice for Women in Student Conduct, served on the ASCA Foundation Board, was appointed to the Diversity Task Force, and participated in the inaugural Conflict Resolution Strategic Planning Summit. Additional memberships include the International Ombudsman Association, Association for Conflict Resolution, Pennsylvania Council of Mediators, ACPA College Student Educators International, NASPA–Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, and the Pennsylvania ODR Stakeholder’s Council. She is also on the editorial board of the Journal of Conflict Management (JOCM).

371

372 editors and chapter contributors    Jennifer Meyer Schrage (she/her) is the interim associate vice president for student life at the University of Michigan and is an expert in higher education policy, leadership, and conflict management. She has devoted her career to promoting safe and just campus communities through leading, teaching, developing, and administering innovative institutional policies and practices through a lens of inclusive excellence. Schrage has worked for the University of Michigan since 2006, serving in a variety of senior leadership roles, including as the senior adviser to the vice president and as director for both the International Center and Office of Student Conflict Resolution. Schrage is credited with leading realignment and strategic change on a local and national level, having earned the Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA) Award for Excellence for significant contributions to the field for her collaborative work with Monita C. Thompson in developing the nationally recognized spectrum model for campus conduct and conflict management. Interviewed by the Chronicle of Higher Education for innovative practices and restorative justice, she has also been invited to speak about her experience and expertise across the country, including invitations from the Association for American Law Schools, Northwestern University, and the ASCA National Conference and Academy. In addition to coediting the first edition of Reframing Campus Conflict (Stylus, 2009), her work is published in About Campus, the Council on Law in Higher Education Student Affairs Law & Policy Quarterly, and ASCA’s Law & Policy Report. Schrage previously taught at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University’s Lodestar Dispute Resolution Center and served as director of Student Judicial Services at Eastern Michigan University. Schrage came to higher education from the practice of law. She earned her law degree at the University of Arizona.

Chapter Contributors D. Eric Archer (he/him) is an assistant professor of educational leadership in higher education in the Department of Educational Leadership, Research and Technology and allied faculty in the global and international studies program at Western Michigan University. His research interests focus broadly on issues of diversity and inclusion in postsecondary education with an emphasis on international education and the internationalization of higher education. Archer completed his PhD in educational leadership and policy studies from Oklahoma State University. Julio J. Cardona (he/him) serves as the assistant dean for student affairs and diversity, equity, and inclusion at the University of Michigan School of

editors and chapter contributors  

373

Music, Theater, and Dance. He has been recognized nationally for efforts to foster a diverse, equitable, and inclusive campus climate via data-driven solutions. Cardona is also a lecturer in the University of Michigan Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education in the school of education where he earned a PhD in higher education. Additionally, Cardona served in leadership roles at Stanford University; University of California, Santa Cruz; and California State University, Monterey Bay. He attained a master’s degree in education from Stanford University, and a bachelor’s degree in human communication from California State University, Monterey Bay. Michael M. DeBowes (he/him) is an experienced higher education administrator, author, and instructor. From 2007–2014, he served as the director of student conduct and academic integrity at Old Dominion University (ODU), a large, public, metropolitan research university in southeastern Virginia. Since 2014, DeBowes has served as the director of research and strategic initiatives for the National Association of Clery Compliance Officers and Professionals (NACCOP) and D. Stafford & Associates. He has been affiliated as an associate with D. Stafford & Associates since 2012. In these roles, DeBowes provides a variety of consulting, training, and technical assistance services related to institutional compliance with the Clery Act and the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (DFSCA). DeBowes also conducts assessments of student conduct codes, processes, and records management systems. He has written numerous practitioner-focused whitepapers and journal articles and serves as editor of the NACCOP Journal of Clery Compliance Officers and Professionals. DeBowes is also an adjunct faculty member in New England College’s Master of Science in Higher Education Administration program. DeBowes graduated with a bachelor’s degree in psychology from Millersville University in 2004; a Master of Education degree in higher education and student affairs administration (HESA) from the University of Vermont in 2006; an education specialist degree in educational leadership from ODU in 2011; and a Doctor of Philosophy degree in higher education from ODU in 2014. His dissertation was recognized by the Association for Student Conduct Administration with the 2015 Dissertation of the Year award. Mary Jo E. Desprez (she/her) serves as the director of Wolverine wellness at the University of Michigan and leads a team of public health and higher education professionals that focus on personal and community well-being. She is an adjunct instructor at Eastern Michigan University where she teaches in the School of Health Promotion and Human Performance. Desprez attained her bachelor’s degree in multidisciplinary social science (economics/

374 editors and chapter contributors    sociology/psychology) and her master’s degree in labor and industrial relations from Michigan State University. Derrick D. Dixon (he/him) is the assistant dean of students and director of student conduct at the University of Oklahoma where he has served since 2020. Throughout his career, Dixon has been tasked with updating and developing student conduct practices as well as implementing conflict resolution programs campus wide and within student housing. As a result, Dixon has gained extensive experience using conflict resolution practices, which include but are not limited to conflict coaching, shuttle diplomacy, and restorative justice. In addition to the work that Dixon has done on campus, he is also actively involved with the Association of Student Conduct Administration (ASCA) and strives to continue developing as a leader in the field. During the summer of 2018, Dixon was featured as a contributor to Conduct and Community: Residence Life Practitioners Guide (ACUHO-I, 2018). The chapter coauthored by Dixon focused on crafting and revising conduct processes. Additionally, Dixon served as a faculty member for the Restorative Justice Track at the 2018 ASCA Donald D. Gehring Academy and as the track coordinator for the Advanced Restorative Justice track at the 2019 Donald D. Gehring Academy. During the spring of 2020, Dixon served as a contributor to the second edition of Student Conduct Practice: The Complete Guide for Student Affairs Professionals (Stylus Publishing, 2020). The chapter coauthored by Dixon focused on bias incidents on campus. Each of these experiences led Dixon to serve as a consultant for various institutions across the nation. Keith E. Edwards (he/him) helps individuals, organizations, and communities to realize their fullest potential as a speaker, consultant, and coach. Over the past 20 years Edwards has spoken and consulted at more than 200 colleges and universities, presented more than 200 programs at national conferences, and written more than 20 articles and book chapters on curricular approaches, sexual violence prevention, men’s identity, social justice education, and leadership. Edwards has provided national leadership on sexual violence prevention, social justice education, and student learning in higher education. He coedited Addressing Sexual Violence in Higher Education (Wiley, 2018) and coauthored the chapter “Comprehensive Sexual Violence Prevention Education” in this book. His 2016 TEDx Talk on preventing sexual violence has been viewed around the world. Edwards founded and served as chair for ACPA’s Commission for Social Justice Educators in 2005. He has chaired multiple times and regularly serves as a faculty member for ACPA’s Institute on the Curricular

editors and chapter contributors  

375

Approach. He is cohost of Student Affairs Live on the Higher Ed Live network. His research, writing, and speaking has received national awards and recognition including ACPA Doctoral Writing Award and ACPA Diamond Honoree. Edwards was previously the Director of Campus Life at Macalester College and an affiliate faculty member at the University of St. Thomas where he taught graduate courses on diversity and social justice in higher education. Valerie Glassman (she/her) is a scholar, researcher, and practitioner interested in legal issues and conflict resolution in higher education. In summer 2020, she began a new role as interim director of the student clinical support division at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill’s School of Nursing. Prior to that, Glassman served for 13 years as an assistant dean of students in the Office of Student Conduct at Duke University. Glassman earned her MSEd in higher education and student affairs from Indiana University and is currently a doctoral candidate in the Department of Educational Leadership at East Carolina University, where she is researching the impacts of judicialization on the professional work and personal lives of student conduct practitioners. Andrea Goldblum (she/her) has 30 years of professional experience in higher education in areas including student conduct, residence life, student organization advising, strategic planning, staff development and supervision, budget management, behavioral intervention and threat assessment, and training; she is also an adjunct faculty member. For 20 of these years, she has led student conduct offices. She has served at several institutions including The Ohio State University, Georgia Tech, University of Colorado at Boulder, Kenyon College, University of the Pacific, and Florida International University. Goldblum currently serves as the director for student conduct and support at the Community College of Denver. Prior to this position, Goldblum spent the previous 6 years working in the civil rights area as a Title IX coordinator, civil rights coordinator, and executive director for gender equity and inclusion. She has also served as a content expert consultant with Margolis Healy & Associates with a focus on Title IX and the Clery Act. Goldblum was a member of the team that created the first campus restorative justice program in the United States while at the University of Colorado at Boulder. She also served as a mediation coach for The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law’s students who serve in the mediation clinic. Goldblum has an MA in higher education administration from the University of Michigan. She holds a BS in education, magna cum laude, from the University of Miami. She has also completed graduate program classes in the study of law at Ohio State University.

376 editors and chapter contributors    Tamara L. Greenfield King (she/her) was named associate vice provost for student affairs in the Division of the Vice Provost for University Life at the University of Pennsylvania in January 2019. Greenfield King supervises six departments: Career Services, Civic House, NROTC, the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life, the Office of Student Affairs, and Platt Student Performing Arts House. Prior to her arrival at Penn, Greenfield King worked at Washington University in St. Louis, where she served as associate vice chancellor for Student Support and Wellness for undergraduate, graduate, and professional students. At Washington University, Greenfield King oversaw the Habif Health and Wellness Center, which provides medical, mental, and pharmaceutical services as well as outreach and prevention programming; the Relationship and Sexual Violence Prevention Center; and the WashU Cares and Students of Concern Behavioral Intervention Team. She also directed services to first-generation and low-income students, addressing needs related to food, shelter, clothing, housing, and health insurance. Greenfield King spent nearly 2 decades at Washington University, previously serving in a variety of roles. They include, associate dean of students, deputy Title IX coordinator, and director of Student Conduct and Community Standards. She was the first African American national president of the Association of Student Conduct Administration (ASCA) from 2009–2010.  She spent nine years as a member of the ASCA Board of Directors. Greenfield King taught civil pretrial practice and procedure at Washington University’s St. Louis School of Law for almost 15 years. She also served as the College of Arts and Sciences academic and prelaw adviser for undergraduates. She has also been an adjunct faculty member at Webster University (St. Louis, Missouri), The Pennsylvania State University (Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania) and Northampton Community College (Bethlehem, Pennsylvania). Prior to transitioning to higher education, Greenfield King practiced law from 1988 to 1998. Greenfield King served as the first African American assistant district attorney in Northampton County, Pennsylvania from 1992 to 1998. She grew up in Easton, Pennsylvania, and earned a bachelor’s degree from Penn State University, majoring in political science and minoring in sociology and Black diaspora studies. She received her law degree from New York University. Nathan J. Hanke (he/him) is the intercultural learning and innovation lead for the University of Michigan Trotter Maricultural Center. Previously Hanke served as director for service learning and involvement at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. While at UNLV he held a dual role also serving as director for the Leadership and civic engagement minor. Hanke has certifications in several personal/organizational development inventories and intercultural

editors and chapter contributors  

377

learning assessments. He holds a master’s degree in college student personnel services from Western Illinois University and a bachelor’s in communication studies from Baldwin-Wallace University. E. Royster Harper (she/her) is the former vice president for student life at the University of Michigan (U-M). Over her 20 years as vice president, she was responsible for the collective services, programs, and facilities that support all aspects of campus life, leadership, and personal growth for more than 41,000 undergraduate and graduate students. During her tenure, the division was recognized nationally for launching flagship programs in social justice education and intercultural development, health and well-being education, student intervention, support and advocacy, and leadership education. Harper previously served as the senior associate vice president and dean of students, assistant to the vice president for academic affairs, and assistant to the dean of the College of Literature, Science and the Arts at U-M. Harper’s community engagement includes service on the Ann Arbor Board of Education, Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum Board of Directors, and the Executive Board of the Ann Arbor branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. An alumna of the University of Michigan (BA and MA), she earned a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania.  Veronica Hipolito (she/her) is the vice president of student affairs at Chandler-Gilbert Community College with the Maricopa County Community College District. Hipolito has over 20 years of experience of in student judicial affairs in a variety of campus settings including Greek life, student housing, and Title IX coordination. Hipolito is dedicated to creating inclusive student experiences in higher education. She facilitates trainings on ethical leadership and social justice. She holds a Master of Arts in community counseling from Northern Arizona University. Ryan C. Holmes (he/him) is associate vice president for student affairs and dean of students at the University of Miami. He completed a Bachelor of Music Education degree from Loyola University, New Orleans, a Master of Arts degree in counseling and personnel services from the University of Maryland, College Park in 2004, and a second Master of Arts degree in bilingual/bicultural studies from La Salle University in 2008. Holmes completed his Doctor of Education in educational leadership and administration at The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) in 2014. Prior to joining the University of Miami, Holmes worked at UTEP as assistant dean of students, associate dean of students/director of student conduct and conflict resolution, and assistant vice president for student support in

378 editors and chapter contributors    succession. Holmes has 17 years of experience in the field of student affairs with 15 years of experience in student conduct. He is a past president of the Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA), has served ASCA as a past conference chair, and served as foundation chair for the Raymond H. Goldstone ASCA Foundation Board. Holmes also served as a past track coordinator for the conflict resolution, mediation, and restorative justice tracks for the ASCA Donald D. Gehring Academy for Student Conduct Administration and was a past faculty member in the Gehring Academy’s conflict resolution, mediation, restorative justice, and training institute tracks as well. Holmes served the American College Personnel Association (ACPA) as vice chair of outreach for the Commission of Social Justice Educators and a contributing member of the ACPA Ethics Consortium Committee. Holmes currently serves NASPA–Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education as a committee member on both the NASPA AVP Steering Committee and the 2020 NASPA AVP Symposium Planning Committee. Holmes has given various talks and presentations dealing with social justice, bias, conflict resolution, and entitlement. He also contributed to Reframing Campus Conflict (Stylus, 2009), More Stories of Inspiration: 51 Uplifting Tales of Courage, Humor, Healing, and Learning in Student Affairs (NASPA, 2009), and The State of Student Conduct: Current Forces & Future Challenges: Revisited (ASCA, 2013), and he coedited Conduct and Community: A Residence Life and Practitioners Guide, as endorsed by both the Association of College and University Housing Officers, International (ACUHO-I) and the Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA) in 2018. Amanda Karel (she/her) served as the student life assessment lead at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, from 2017 until 2019 while part-time faculty at Eastern Michigan University in the School of Communication, Media, and Theatre Arts. Previously, at Austin Community College she was the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) coordinator and coordinator of Institutional Planning and Assessment. Before that she was an assistant professor of communication, assessment coordinator for the humanities department, and faculty liaison to the diversity and inclusion office at Ferris State University. Karel holds a PhD in education leadership from Eastern Michigan University, an ABD in communication from The Ohio State University, and an MA and BA in communication from Eastern Michigan University. David R. Karp (he/him) is a professor and director of the Center for Restorative Justice in the School of Leadership and Education Sciences at

editors and chapter contributors  

379

the University of San Diego. His current scholarship focuses on restorative justice in community and educational settings. For his work on campus restorative justice, he was the recipient of the 2019 Leadership and Innovation award from the National Association of Community and Restorative Justice as well as the 2011 Donald D. Gehring award from the Association for Student Conduct Administration. Karp has published more than 100 academic papers and six books, including The Little Book of Restorative Justice for Colleges and Universities (Little Books of Justice & Peacebuilding, 2019), Wounds That Do Not Bind: Victim-Based Perspectives on the Death Penalty (Carolina Academic Press, 2006), and The Community Justice Ideal (Westview Press, 1999). Karp serves on the board of directors for the National Association for Community and Restorative Justice. He has previously served as associate dean of student affairs and professor of sociology at Skidmore College. Karp received a BA in peace and conflict studies from the University of California at Berkeley, and a PhD in sociology from the University of Washington.  Ramona Meraz Lewis (she/her) is the faculty coordinator in the higher education and student affairs (HESA) leadership concentration in the Department of Educational Leadership, Research and Technology and serves in the Graduate College as the faculty director of graduate student success at Western Michigan University (WMU). Lewis teaches foundations of student affairs, college environments, intervention skills, and global perspectives in higher education among others. Lewis’s research interests include graduate education and pedagogy, adult learning with a special emphasis on the 50-plus learner, and teaching experiences of student affairs professionals. Prior to joining WMU, Lewis served in a variety of administrative student and academic affairs positions. Sheila M. McMahon (she/her) is an assistant professor at the Barry University School of Social Work in Miami Shores, Florida. Her research focuses on the preventing and addressing power-based violence through restorative practices, such as restorative justice circles and the use of nonviolent communication as a foundational skill in resolving conflict and harm. During the decade prior to becoming a faculty member, she served as a university sexual assault prevention educator and rape crisis counselor. She holds a ­bachelor’s degree in English from Boston College and a Master of Divinity from Harvard University, where she studied applied feminist ethics, adolescent risk and resilience, and community organizing. She earned her Master of Social Work and Doctorate in Social Work at the Rutgers University School of Social Work, where she was trained in intervention research at the Center

380 editors and chapter contributors    on Violence Against Women and Children (VAWC). McMahon is also a licensed clinical social worker in Florida. Leah A. Merrifield (she/her) is recently retired as Washington University’s associate vice chancellor for community engagement and St. Louis College readiness initiatives and is the founding director of the Washington University College Prep Program. Launched in 2014, the College Prep Program is a multiyear initiative designed to help talented but underserved St. Louis area high school students prepare for and complete a college education at a selective 4-year college or university. Merrifield also oversaw the Washington University College Advising Corps (WUCAC). The WUCAC places recent Washington University graduates in local under-resourced high schools as college guidance advisers. Launched in 2015, the WUCAC currently supports seven high schools in the St. Louis region. Merrifield also served as the Washington University liaison to KIPP St. Louis and KIPP National (The Knowledge Is Power Program, America’s largest network of public charter schools serving low income communities). Merrifield was a long-standing member of both the Washington University Student Conduct Board and the University Sexual Assault Investigative Board and is a member of the Barnes-Jewish Hospital Nominating, Governance, and Diversity Committee. She previously served as Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Diversity Initiatives at Washington University and has been a national presenter on topics including Title IX, College Readiness, Diversity and Inclusion, and Community Engagement. Merrifield received her Bachelor of Arts degree from Illinois Wesleyan University and her Master of Education degree from The University of Texas at Austin. Patricia M. Porter (she/her) teaches the CINERGY® conflict management coaching model to graduate students in the dispute resolution and conflict management program at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas, Texas. Porter is the president of Conflict Connections, Inc., and is a 25-year conflict management resolution practitioner providing conflict analysis, conflict coaching, facilitation, mediation, and extensive training to the federal, public, private, and higher education institutions. She is past president of the Texas Association of Mediators (TAM) and past workplace section chair for the Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR). She is the author of Stop the Dreaded Drama: 55 Tips for Ending Destructive Conflict (Conflict Connections, Inc., 2015) and Stop Avoiding Conflict: Learn How to Address Disputes Before They Erupt (Conflict Connections, Inc., 2004). Porter also founded the Texas Conflict Coach, a podcast program producing and hosting over 325 podcasts

editors and chapter contributors  

381

(texasconflictcoach.com). She holds a Master of Social Work from Delaware State University and her license as a clinical social worker (LCSW) in Texas. She is a professional certified coach (ACC) through the International Coach Federation. Donna M. Talbot (she/her) is department chair and professor of educational leadership, research, and technology at Western Michigan University (WMU), specializing in higher education and student affairs leadership. She earned a PhD in administration of college student affairs from the University of Maryland, College Park. She teaches, among other courses, equity and diversity in higher education, foundations of student affairs and administration and assessment of college environment. Talbot’s scholarship focuses on diversity and equity in higher education, Asian Americans, and students with multiple minority identities, and more recently on the globalization of U.S. higher education. Simone Himbeault Taylor (she/her) is ​the ​interim vice president for student life at the University of Michigan​, ​providing divisional leadership to advance the efforts of ​an intentionally designed, student-centered organization guided by current theory, research, and good practice. Taylor guides the department’s institutional impact on student learning and development helping create a climate conducive to the learning of all students. She advances divisional efforts across units and cross-functional areas toward preparing students to lead in a diverse democracy. She regularly leads campus-wide initiatives, including​ large-scale​ integrative learning efforts and advancing institutional accountability through shared student learning outcomes. Her teaching, research, and professional interests include student learning and development as well as the strategic management of student affairs, especially regarding the relationship of theory, research, and practice. ​She writes about, presents, and consults on issues related to student learning and development and organizational effectiveness. ​She received her PhD from ​the University of Michigan’s (U-M) Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education and holds BA and MA degrees from U-M. ​She serves as adjunct associate professor at U-M, teaching courses related to student growth and college impact. Monita C. Thompson (she/her) serves as the student life codirector of the Program on Intergroup Relations at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Her work in intergroup relations focuses on the training, development, and support of peer educators in skills and techniques of intergroup dialogue facilitation, conflict management, and becoming a social change agent. She is a graduate of Tennessee State University and Western Kentucky University.

382 editors and chapter contributors    Donica Thomas Varner (she/her) is vice president, general counsel, and secretary at Oberlin College, a position she has held since 2017. She is an experienced litigation attorney and higher education law practitioner with professional experience representing and advising public and private employers since 1994. Varner has developed a comprehensive understanding of the complexity of the many laws and regulations affecting colleges and universities with unique expertise in the areas of constitutional law, civil rights, student privacy, student affairs, immigration, crisis management, and emergency preparedness planning. In addition to overseeing Oberlin’s legal and compliance programs and corporate secretary functions, Varner leverages her interpersonal and project management skills to bring professionals together to creatively problem solve and develop transformational solutions that reflect the client’s mission and core values. Prior to joining Oberlin, Varner served as associate general counsel and practice group leader for the faculty, staff, and student legal practice group in the Office of the Vice President and General Counsel at the University of Michigan. Varner began her legal practice with Detroit-based law firms, representing public and private employers in the areas of employment and labor law. Varner left private practice to join the legal staff at Wayne State University where she represented the university in trial and appellate courts, regulatory investigations, and labor negotiations. She then joined the legal staff at the University of Michigan where her practice focused on student affairs, employment, immigration, litigation, and international engagement issues. She is a graduate of North Carolina State University with a degree in political science and the University of Michigan Law School. William Warters (he/him) retired from his faculty role in the dispute resolution master’s program at Wayne State University in 2019. He served as director and developer of the Conflict Management in Higher Education Resource Center (campus-adr.org) and the Conflict Resolution Education Clearinghouse (creducation.net), both funded by the Fund for Improvement of Post-Secondary Education. He is author of Mediation in the Campus Community: Designing and Managing Effective Programs (Jossey-Bass, 2000). He holds a PhD from Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. In 2008 the Association for Conflict Resolution awarded him the William J. Kreidler Award for Distinguished Service to the Field of Conflict Resolution Education. Erik Wessel (he/him) serves as director of the Office of Student Conflict Resolution at the University of Michigan where he oversees the implementation of community conflict resolution services and education through a

editors and chapter contributors  

383

restorative justice framework with a social justice lens. He received his Doctor of Education degree from Pennsylvania State University in higher education administration with a cognate in counselor education. Jay K. Wilgus (he/him) is a lawyer, mediator, educator, consultant, and facilitator who serves as principal at Klancy Street, LLC.—a specialized law, consulting, and dispute resolution firm focusing on higher education. Prior to forming Klancy Street, Wilgus served as assistant dean of students at the University of Utah and director of the Office of Student Conflict Resolution at the University of Michigan. Wilgus holds a master’s in dispute resolution from Pepperdine and a juris doctorate from the University of Utah.

INDEX

AAC&U. See Association of American Colleges and Universities AAHE. See American Association for Higher Education AAUP. See American Association of University Professors academic integrity circles, 313–14 Academic Partnerships, 24 academic success circles, 315–16 accountability boards, 219–20 achievement gaps, 19 ACPA. See American College Personnel Administrators active student learning, 52, 54, 65 activism, 228, 230, 344, 346, 353 adaptable conflict management, 29 adaptive conflict resolution, 103 adjudication, 4, 103–4 ADR compared to, 204–5 for ASJA, 11 of bias incidents, 35 case studies for, 62–64 confidentiality in, 119 as criminal justice, 243 decision-making in, 273–78 fairness in, 90–91 in higher education, 57–61, 189 impartiality in, 80, 82 inclusive conflict excellence and, 8, 241–45, 286–90 intake process in, 116–21 K–12 discipline, 19–20 marginalization in, 116 mediation and, 114 pathways for, 105–7 professionalism in, 80 risk management and, 13

RJ in, 12 sanction options, 156–57 for sexual misconduct, 245, 376 social justice and, 3 spectrum model for, 2, 63, 120–21 stakeholders in, 177–78 standards of, 245–48 for students, 19, 110–11 systemic change in, 89–90, 94, 248–50 traditional discipline in, 209–10, 220 uniform disciplinary processes, 61 administrators, 106 administrative hearings, 260–62, 265–70 campus, 239 institutional responses by, 254–55 QA, 328–29, 334 spectrum model for, 2 systemic change for, 241–42 admissions, 71n1 ADR. See alternative dispute resolution advisers, 260, 272 advocacy skills, 347 affected parties, 272 aggression, 230 Alabama State University (ASU), xv–xxi, 33–34 alcohol, 218, 270–71, 312–13, 380 allegations, 238, 246–47, 270–71 all-voices-matter perspective, 343 alternative disciplinary practices, 19, 103, 116–17, 120 alternative dispute resolution (ADR), 140, 191–92, 204–5 American Association for Higher Education (AAHE), 296 385

386   

index

American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 190 American College Personnel Administrators (ACPA), 41, 85–86 anger management, 149 applications of circles, 311–17 for conflict coaching, 155–64 for facilitated dialogue, 174–76 of RJ, 211–15, 218 of shuttle diplomacy, 238 applied learning, 46 appropriate conflict resolution, 103 Arbery, Ahmaud, 88, 357 arbitrary case management, 103–4 The Art of the Deal (Trump), 231 ASCA. See Association for Student Conduct Administration ASJA. See Association for Student Judicial Affairs assessment Assessing Intercultural Competence, 323 for communities, 298–300 in conflict management, 248 conflict resolution, 295–97, 305–6 cultural responsiveness, 3, 295–97, 305–6 in higher education, 334–35 IDI, 332 of inclusive conflict excellence, 68–71, 297–98, 301–3 multidimensional inclusive assessment model, 301–5 teams, 43 Association for Student Conduct Administration (ASCA), 11, 79, 143, 154, 213, 283 Association for Student Judicial Affairs (ASJA), 11, 79, 143 Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), xi, 1–2, 10, 325 inclusive conflict excellence and, 30, 83, 101

Toward a Model of Inclusive Excellence and Change in Postsecondary Institutions, 297–98 W. K. Kellogg Foundation and, 32–33 authentic collaboration, 339–41, 344–45, 351–55 authority, 251, 260, 263, 287 bargaining, 193–94, 232–33 Begin, Menachem, 229 behavior policy, 112, 209–10, 217, 380–81 Belachew, Yeworkwha, 159 Bennett, Milton, 323–24 bias, 35, 139–40, 165, 185, 238, 308 Biased (Eberhardt), 17 bigotry, 26–27 Bishop v. Woods, 58 Black Lives Matter, 21, 79–80, 183, 346, 348, 362, 363, 368 Black students, 87–88 Bland, Sandra, 87–88 Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 57–58, 60 A Bold Vision Forward (ACPA), 85–86 brain development, 48 Brinkert, Ross, 146, 150 Brock, Vikki, 146 Brooks, Rayshard, 88, 357 Brown, Michael, 87–88, 134 Bush, Robert Baruch, 197–98 business coaching, 146 Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy, 59 Camp David Accords, 229, 231 campus administrators, 239 climate, 10–11, 209 communication on, 17 communities and, 8–9, 80, 348–49

index  

conflict, 101–2, 109–10, 123–24, 132, 173, 186–87 conflict coaching on, 149, 155–64 conflict management on, 22–23, 88–89, 94–95, 335 conflict support on, 148–49 criminal justice on, 192 democracy on, 135 dialogue on, 141–42 diversity on, 12, 322–23 due diligence on, 90–91 engagement on, 349 experience, 20–21, 87, 95–96 for FIRE, 139–40 First Amendment rights on, 114–15 fraternities on, 224 friendships on, 225 hate incidents on, 35 HESA leadership on, 334 inclusive campus leadership, 339–41, 351–55 intercultural competence on, 322 justice, 210 leadership on, 87, 231–32 learners, 21–25 legalism, 191 mediation on, 190–92 ombudspersons on, 161–63 oppression on, 82 partnerships on, 329 police, 81–82, 87–88 policy, 116–17, 140 professionalism on, 237 protests on, 132–35 race on, 87–88, 238 rape, 17–18 residence halls on, 286 response systems, 28–30 RJ on, 310–11 roommates on, 376 safe spaces on, 136–39 scripted language on, 253–59 security officers, 122 sexual misconduct on, 132–33, 218, 308

387

shuttle diplomacy on, 228–29, 239–40 social justice on, 113 spectrum model on, 171–72, 238, 245–46 stakeholders, 15 student conflict on, 87–89 support teams, 174 systemic change on, 97, 347 values-based conflict on, 230 capacity-building assessment, 68–71 care management, 26 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 67 Carr, Julian Shakespeare, 345–46 Carter, Jimmy, 228–29 case studies, 378–81 Caslen, Robert L., Jr., 343–44 Castile, Philando, 87–88, 134 caucusing, 236–37, 272–73 CCCM. See comprehensive conflict coaching model CCDI. See Coordinating Council for Diversity Initiatives CDP. See conflict dynamics profile censorship, 93 Cerminara, Kathryn, 374 CERT. See Conflict Education Resource Team Chan, Kouang, 162–63 change management, 248–50, 281–86. See also systemic change character witnesses, 260 charge letters, 119 Charlottesville rally, 88–89, 134, 173 cheating, 313–14 check-in circles, 222 China, 376–77 CINERGY® conflict management coaching model, 150, 152–56, 159–60, 162–63, 167 circles, 3, 219–22 academic integrity, 313–14 academic success, 315–16 applications of, 311–17 diversity and inclusion, 314–15

388   

index

friendship, 314 healing, 121 health and wellness, 312 RJ, 318 sexual misconduct, 317 StudyCircle program, 311 substance abuse, 312–13 sustainability, 316–17 cisgender children, 85 civil rights, 33–34, 61, 203–4, 344 classroom voices, 351 climate campus, 10–11, 209 climate-related conflict, 140 in higher education, 15, 17–18 surveys, 35–36 coachability, 150–52 coaching. See conflict coaching The Coddling of the American Mind (Lukianoff ), 114–15, 144 cofacilitation model, 237 cognitive development, 48–49 Colgate University, 140 collaboration authentic, 339–41, 344–45, 351–55 collaborative dialogue, 65, 130 collaborative inquiry, 67 collaborative leadership, 349–51 collaborative vision, 32 in conflict resolution, 165 decision-making and, 377–78 DEI model for, 326–27 across differences, 326 diversity from, 242 engagement and, 232 inclusive conflict excellence and, 377 institutionalization and, 165 in problem-solving, 180 questions and, 350 for solutions, 312 in spectrum model, 9 for stakeholders, 341–42 students and, 141, 350–51 teamwork, 316 training for, 239

Colorado State University (CSU), 155–58, 165 communication. See also dialogue; facilitated dialogue on campus, 17 circles for, 219–22 of harm, 219–20 inclusivity in, 187 language barriers in, 178–79 low-context, 18 online, 16 private conversations, 379–80 reporting and, 246–47 research on, 209 respectful, 184 trust in, 260 communitarianism, 18–19 communities alternative disciplinary practices for, 120 assessment for, 298–300 bigotry in, 26–27 campus and, 8–9, 80, 348–49 circles for, 219–22 community accountability boards, 219–20 community group conferences, 219 Community Relations offices, 349–50 conflict resolution for, 109, 195 COVID-19 for, 339 educators and, 138–39 engagement with, 140–41 fairness in, 89, 96 harm in, 215–16, 271 higher education and, 90 inclusive conflict excellence and, 3–4, 101–2, 123–24 leadership in, 348–49 for LGBTQ+ students, 211 marginalization in, 110, 114, 231 policy for, 295–96 restorative, 309–11, 319 RJ for, 3 safety in, 42, 56, 65

index  

stakeholders in, 288 for student learning, 52–55 students in, 10–11, 243 systemic change in, 34 trust in, 16 violations in, 222–23 comparative conflict coaching, 152–54 complainants, 259–60, 271–72 comprehensive conflict coaching model (CCCM), 150, 152–53 conduct management conflict management and, 9, 20, 30–31, 34 development of, 250–51 diversity in, 91 in higher education, 116–17, 243–44 legal obligations in, 55–65 moral development and, 49 offices, 12 policies for, 58 prelude approach for, 120–21 social justice in, 87–93 spectrum model for, 11–12 for students, 14, 22–23, 112–13, 186, 245, 281–82 conduct resolution, 35 conferences, 259–64 confidentiality, 119, 247 conflict. See specific topics conflict coaching, 117, 203 applications for, 155–64 on campus, 149, 155–64 CCCM, 150, 152–53 at Colorado State University, 155–58 comparative, 152–54 Conflict Coaching, 146 Conflict Management Coaching, 146 dialogue on, 168–69 group conflict resolution and, 144–45, 166–68 in higher education, 146–47, 151 history of, 145–49 for inclusive conflict excellence, 2 models for, 150–52

389

at Oberlin College, 159–62 organizational structures for, 154–55 pathways for, 105 public institutions with, 164 reflection on, 168–69 restorative victim-offender conferences and, 205 for students, 12–13 training for, 150–51, 168 at University of Texas at Austin, 162–64 conflict culture, 18–21, 110–11, 164–66 conflict dynamics profile (CDP), 157, 323 Conflict Education Resource Team (CERT), 147 conflict management. See also CINERGY® conflict management coaching model; Intercultural Development Inventory pilot experience adaptable, 29 assessment in, 248 on campus, 22–23, 88–89, 94–95, 335 in campus communities, 8–9 conduct management and, 9, 20, 30–31, 34 for educators, 95–96 facilitated dialogue in, 171–72, 186–87 inclusive conflict excellence and, xi–xii learning and, 108–9 negotiating in, 53 pathways for, 105 regulation of, 60–61 relationship-building in, 233 social justice and, 102 spectrum model for, xii, 103–5 stakeholders in, 95 student conduct and, 124 for student conflict, 89–90, 239–40

390   

index

conflict resolution alternatives in, 230 assessment, 295–97, 305–6 collaboration in, 165 for communities, 109, 195 Conflict Resolution Education Network, 107–8 definitions for, 87 dialogue for, 2 diversity in, 310–11 educators, 64–65 first-year student-led circles for, 311–17 formal pathways for, 64 group, 144–45, 166–68 in higher education, 1 inquiry in, 233–34 legal obligations in, 55–65 mutual gain in, 234–35 objectivity in, 235 prelude approach for, 120–21 RJ and, 157–58 social identity in, 114 social justice and, 111 spectrum model for, 176, 236 student learning and, 65 for students, 50–51, 62–63, 67, 108–9 theory for, 47–52 trust in, 9–10 vocabulary for, 256–58 conflict support, 148–49 consent, 161 Constitution, U.S., 57, 114–15, 245 constructive dialogue, 2 consumerism, 26 contemporary student conflict, 78 control, 27–28 convening, 312 Coordinating Council for Diversity Initiatives (CCDI), 340–41 cotraining, 116–17 Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 245

counseling, 149 COVID-19, 317 for communities, 339 Coronavirus, 373–74 decision matrix exercises for, 36–38 disruption from, 183, 187 for higher education, 3, 376–77 high stakes decision-making during, 374–75 institutional responses for, 342 knowledge about, 378 social distancing for, 376 virtual learning during, 255 criminal justice, 192, 203–4, 211–14, 243, 251, 255 critical consciousness, 90–92 critical race theory, 1–2, 117–18 critical thinking, 55, 308–9, 318–19 cross-cultural conversations, 135–36 CSU. See Colorado State University culture change in, 79–80 conflict, 18–21, 110–11, 164–66 cross-cultural conversations, 135–36 cultural change, 183 cultural identity, 1 cultural responsiveness assessment, 3, 295–97, 305–6 cultural values, 111 disruption in, 134 of higher education, 2, 15–17, 354 human, 45 of inclusive conflict excellence, 324–25 intercultural awareness, 183 intercultural development, 3, 229 multiculturalism, 83 new cultural norms, 28–29 social identity and, 110–11 student learning and, 322–23, 335–36 DACA. See Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

index  

data, 300, 341 Davidson, Kimberly Jackson, 159 deadnaming, 224 dealmakers, 193–94 Dear Colleague letters, 248 debate, 130, 173 decision-making, 273–78, 374–75, 377–78 decision matrix, 36–38, 374–76, 378 decolonization, 85–86 deep listening, 348 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), 342–43, 350 degrees, 280 Dei, George, 295 DEI model. See diversity, equity, and inclusion model delinking, 202 democracy, 135 demographics, 23–32, 35 deterrence, 278 development. See also identity development theory of CINERGY® conflict management coaching model, 150 cognitive, 48–49 of conduct management, 250–51 developmental milestones, 22, 28, 56 fostering growth for, 50–51 intercultural, 3, 135–36, 229 learning and, 54–55 models of, 302–3 moral, 49 professional, 283 psychosocial, 49–50 restorative tiered behavior policy, 380–81 of skills, 135–36 special program, 122–23 student development theory, 1–2, 7–8, 325 of students, 210, 308 dialogue, 35–36, 105, 117, 122, 160– 61. See also facilitated dialogue on campus, 141–42

391

collaborative, 65, 130 for collaborative inquiry, 67 on conflict coaching, 168–69 for conflict resolution, 2 debate compared to, 130 fostering, 139–41 in higher education, 11 for IDI, 336 for inclusive conflict excellence, 124–25, 286–90 for leadership, 354–55 mediation and, 161, 186 polarization in, 131–35 reflection and, 142, 378–81 for restorative communities, 319 reviving, 129 for RJ, 224–25 for shuttle diplomacy, 240 for social justice, 96–97 spaces for, 136–39 for staff, 353 for student conduct, 306 for students, 135–36 for victims, 220–21 vulnerability in, 91–92 difference, 303–4 digital natives, 17 dignity, 79 diplomacy. See shuttle diplomacy directive mediation, 195–96 discipline, 209–10, 220, 249–50, 288. See also specific topics discretionary sanctions, 279 discrimination, 71n1, 94 discussions, 173 disputes, 140, 174–76, 191–92, 204–5 disruption from COVID-19, 183, 187 in culture, 134 inclusive conflict excellence and, 375–76 polarization and, 141–42 for systemic change, 3–4 distributive mind-set, 231, 239–40 diversity

392   

index

for AAC&U, 10 on campus, 12, 322–23 CCDI, 340–41 from collaboration, 242 in conduct management, 91 in conflict resolution, 310–11 diversity and inclusion circles, 314–15 Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Action Plan Task Force, 79 equity and, xi facilitated dialogue and, 182–83 fairness and, 84 in higher education, 7–8, 94, 165 in identity development theory, 8–9 learning and, 204, 217, 339–40 multiculturalism and, 83 multipartiality and, 187 Philosophy of Diversity and Inclusion ePortfolios, 332 of politics, 20–21 of social groups, 182–83 spaces for, 136–39 stakeholders and, 18, 299 for student affairs, 355 for students, 4, 372 training for, 113 visible, 35 diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) model, 301–2, 326–27 Division of Student Affairs (DSA), 331–32 Dixon, John, 378 Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 33–34, 58–59 drugs, 218, 270–71, 312–13, 380 DSA. See Division of Student Affairs due diligence, 90–91 due process, 57–61, 190, 258–59 Duke University, 255 Eberhardt, Jennifer, 17 echo chambers, 133 educational consumers, 347

educational goals, 41–44, 65–67, 95 Education Amendments Act, 348 educators behavioral interventions by, 209–10 communities and, 138–39 conflict management for, 95–96 conflict resolution, 64–65 in higher education, 14–15 learning and, 67 spectrum model for, 47, 107, 122–23 students and, 2, 44–45, 54–55, 238–39 United Educators, 55 elicitive mediation, 195–96 Emerson, Melissa, 158 emotions, 184–85, 201 empathy, 161–62, 179, 303–4 empowerment, 198, 202, 216–17 The End of Average (Rose), 9 engagement, 199 on campus, 349 collaboration and, 232 in higher education, 305–6 with learning, 309–11, 374–75 relationship-building and, 237 Epston, David, 199 equity, xi, 26–27, 301–2, 326–27 Erhard, Werner, 244 ethics, 236–37 evaluative mediation, 194 evaluative problem-solving, 196–97 evidence, 256 exclusion, 16–17, 27 expulsions, 279 external conflicts, 53 externalization, 199 facilitated dialogue, 105, 117, 160–61 applications for, 174–76 cofacilitation model, 237 in conflict management, 171–72, 186–87

index  

diversity and, 182–83 empathy in, 179 facilitator neutrality, 92–93 games for, 314–15 identity awareness and, 184–85 for low-level conflict, 2 mediation and, 122, 172–73 modeling of, 178 multipartiality in, 180–82 power in, 185 professionalism for, 179–80 reflective listening in, 178–79 responsibility in, 177–78 safe spaces for, 185 skills for, 180–81 with students, 63–65 training for, 284–85 utility of, 173–74 facilitative mediation, 194 facilitative problem-solving, 196–97 faculty, 296, 298–99, 332–34 fairness in adjudication, 90–91 in communities, 89, 96 diversity and, 84 honor and, 254 theory of, 55–57 uniform disciplinary processes for, 61 in U.S., 94 fake news, 17, 340 FAPE. See free, appropriate public education federal funding, 71n1 feedback, 219 field jargon, 244 fines, 279 FIRE. See Foundation for Individual Rights First Amendment rights, 114–15, 245 first-year student-led circles, 311–17 Fisher, Roger, 196 Fix School Discipline, 19 #flattenthecurve, 371 Flores, Ilse, 158 Floyd, George, 87, 134, 357, 365

393

Folger, Joseph P., 147, 197–98 formal adjudication. See adjudication Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE), 139–40, 144 foundations, 83–85 framework, 9–15, 65 fraternities, 224 free, appropriate public education (FAPE), 23–24 free play, 133–34 Friend, Ashyln, 158 friendships, 139, 225, 314 funding, 203 Garner, Eric, 134 Gehring, Donald D., 79 gender, 79–80, 83–84, 315. See also Title IX Generation Z, 308–9 Getting to Yes (Fisher/Ury), 196, 232 Gilbert v. Homar, 59 Gilligan, Carol, 198 global mind-set, 324 goals, 41–44, 65–67, 95, 282–83, 285–86 Goldblum, Andrea, 310 Goss v. Lopez, 57–60 graduate education, 329–35 Gray, Freddie, 87–88 ground rules, 260–62 group conflict resolution, 144–45, 166–68 group reflection, 333 guest speakers, 327 Hall, Edward T., 18 halo effect, 88 Hammer, Mitchell, 323–24 Hampton, Sybil Jordan, 344–45 harassment, 221, 224–25, 247–48. See also sexual misconduct harm, 215–16, 219–20 case studies on, 378–79

394   

index

community harm, 271 harmed parties, 259 identification, 265–70 policy for, 380–81 restorative conferences and, 273–78 RJ after, 310 hate incidents, 35 HBCUs. See historically Black colleges and universities health and wellness, 121, 312, 326 hearings, 258–62, 265–70, 272–73 HECMA. See Higher Education Case Management Association Hedeen, Tim, 194 HESA leadership. See higher education and student affairs leadership Heyer, Heather, 134, 173 higher education AAHE, 296 adjudication in, 57–61, 189 assessment in, 334–35 campus experience in, 20–21, 87, 95–96 capacity-building assessment for, 68–71 for Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 67 censorship in, 93 change management in, 281–86 cheating in, 313–14 classroom voices in, 351 climate in, 15, 17–18 communities and, 90 conduct management in, 116–17, 243–44 conflict coaching in, 146–47, 151 conflict culture in, 18–21 conflict resolution in, 1 Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 245 COVID-19 for, 3, 376–77 critical thinking in, 55 culture of, 2, 15–17, 354 demographics in, 23–24

dialogue in, 11 discrimination in, 71n1 diversity in, 7–8, 94, 165 educators in, 14–15 engagement in, 305–6 enthusiasm in, 282 funding in, 203 for Generation Z, 308–9 guest speakers in, 327 HECMA, 243–44 IDI in, 324–29, 335–36 inclusive conflict excellence in, 290, 335 inequity in, 372 Inside Higher Ed, 297 institutional responses in, 28–29, 124 international students in, 24 introspection in, 80 leadership in, 341–45 learning in, 45–46 magic real estate in, 102–3, 117–18, 253, 377 misconduct in, 218 missions of inclusive excellence in, 164–66 new normal in, 375, 378–81 oppression in, 109 outcomes in, 46–47 professionalism in, 8 public institutions of, 58–59 public perception of, 25–26, 114–15, 144 reconciliation in, 345–46 reform in, xi religious oppression in, 224 research on, 19–20 RJ in, 212–14 safety in, 63 sanction options in, 156–57 social identity in, 18 social justice in, 13–14, 85–87, 109–10 special program development in, 122–23

index  

spectrum model for, 44, 117–20, 174 stakeholders of, 4 student affairs in, 85, 349–50 student conduct boards in, 283–84, 287–88 student development in, 210 for students, 281, 322–23 success after, 296 systemic change in, 21–22, 78, 82, 95, 249 systemic oppression in, 86 task forces in, 283–84 Toward a Model of Inclusive Excellence and Change in Postsecondary Institutions, 297–98 tradition in, 186 TRHT effort in, 32–33, 137–38 in U.S., 379 WICHE, 22–23 Zoom for, 373–74 higher education and student affairs (HESA) leadership, 330–31, 334 Higher Education Case Management Association (HECMA), 243–44 high stakes decision-making, 374–75 historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), 10, 344 history, 146 ADR, 191–92 of conflict coaching, 145–49 IDI, 323–24 of mediation, 2, 190 of social justice, 79–82 of spectrum model, 102–3 of student conflict, 42–43 holistic learning, 41–42 honesty, 91–92 honor, 254–55 Hosea, Robert, 155 Huffman, Felicity, 25 human culture, 45 human resources, 26

395

IAC. See International Association of Coaching ICF. See International Coach Federation IDEA. See Individuals with Disabilities Education Act identity development theory communitarianism in, 18–19 critical race theory and, 1–2 demographics and, 35 diversity in, 8–9 identity awareness, 184–85 in inclusive assessment models, 303–4 social groups in, 83–84 student learning and, 50–51 for students, 15–16 IDI. See Intercultural Development Inventory pilot experience IEP. See individualized education programs immigration, 79–80 impartiality, 80, 82 incapacitation, 278 inclusive campus leadership, 339–41, 351–55 inclusive conflict excellence AAC&U and, 30, 83, 101 adjudication and, 8, 241–45, 286–90 assessment of, 68–71, 297–98, 301–3 campus response systems and, 28–30 change management in, 281–86 collaboration and, 377 communities and, 3–4, 101–2, 123–24 conflict coaching for, 2 conflict culture and, 164–66 conflict management and, xi–xii culture of, 324–25 decision-making in, 273–78 decision matrix exercises, 36–38 definitions of, 49 disruption and, 375–76

396   

index

framework for, 9–15, 65 at HBCUs, 10 in higher education, 290, 335 information gathering in, 264–73 institutionalization of, 282–83 institutional responses with, 108 intercultural development for, 3, 229 language of, 250–53 multidimensional inclusive assessment model, 301–5 multiple lenses with, 30–32 outreach in, 161 Philosophy of Diversity and Inclusion ePortfolios, 332 policy change initiatives for, 36 power in, 374–76 punishment and, 278–81 questions about, 124–25, 286–90 race in, 341 reflection on, 124–25, 286–90 RJ and, 259–64 scripted language and, 253–59 shuttle diplomacy for, 230 social justice and, 181–86 spectrum model for, 1, 104, 116–17, 371–72, 376–78 for stakeholders, 282 structural determinism in, 118 student conflict and, 354 for students, 2 for systemic change, 33, 253–55 theory for, 96 independent mediators, 192–93 individualized education programs (IEP), 23–24 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 23–24 inequity, 2–3, 11, 22, 34, 372, 378 informal adjudication. See specific models information, 237, 256, 264–73, 332–33 informed decisions, 151–52 Ingraham v. Wright, 59 inquiry, 233–34, 251, 299

Inside Higher Ed (Stewart), 297 insight mediation, 195, 201–2 institutionalization, 165, 282–83 institutional responses by administrators, 254–55 to bias, 139–40 for COVID-19, 342 in higher education, 28–29, 124 with inclusive conflict excellence, 108 oppression in, 110 process for, 56 socialization in, 93 to student conflict, 66–67 to systemic change, 86–87 insubordination, 244–45, 253–55 intake process, 116–21 integrative learning, 46, 52, 231–32, 239–40 intellectual skills, 45–46 intent, 62 intercultural development, 3, 135–36, 229 Intercultural Development Inventory pilot experience (IDI) in graduate education, 329–35 in higher education, 324–29, 335–36 history of, 323–24 interculturality, 3, 135–36, 183, 229, 322–24 internal conflicts, 53 International Association of Coaching (IAC), 154–55 International Coach Federation (ICF), 146, 152–53 International Ombudsman Association (IOA), 147–48, 154, 157–59 international students, 24 interpersonal conflict, 144–45, 166–68 interpersonal skills, 311 intervention strategies, 222 introspection, 80 IOA. See International Ombudsman Association

index  

Jones, Tricia, 146–47, 150, 167 judgment, 273–78 Just Mercy (Stevenson), 20, 250–51 K–12 discipline, 19–20 Karp, David, 211–13, 225n2 King, Martin Luther, Jr., 171, 308 King, Tamara L. Greenfield, 341 knowledge, 45, 326, 378 Kressel, Kenneth, 204 language barriers, 178–79 of criminal justice, 251 field jargon, 244 of inclusive conflict excellence, 250–53 of RJ, 256–58 scripted, 253–59, 260–62, 265–70, 274–77 in spectrum model, 288–89 terminology, 225n1 of trust, 288 vocabulary, 256–58 LCJP. See Longmont Community Justice Partnership leadership on campus, 87, 231–32 collaborative, 349–51 in communities, 348–49 goals of, 282–83 in HBCUs, 344 HESA, 330–31, 334 in higher education, 341–45 inclusive campus, 339–41, 351–55 in politics, 371–72 for RJ, 285–86 social justice and, 52 for students, 347 systemic change in, 101–2 learning. See also student learning applied, 46 coaching skills, 166–67

397

conflict management and, 108–9 DEI model for, 301–2 development and, 54–55 diversity and, 204, 217, 339–40 educators and, 67 emotions in, 201 engagement with, 309–11, 374–75 faculty, 332–33 in higher education, 45–46 holistic, 41–42 integrative, 46, 52, 231–32, 239–40 outcomes, 49–50, 107–8, 325–26 reflective, 326 restoration and, 27–28 RJ and, 27–28 virtual, 255, 379–80 least restrictive environment (LRE), 23–24 legal obligations due process, 57–61 educational goals and, 41–44, 65–67 nondiscrimination, 61–65 in student conflict, 55–57 LGBTQ+ students, 23, 174–76, 182, 211 listening, 118, 178–79, 348 livability issues, 219–20 Longmont Community Justice Partnership (LCJP), 212 Loughlin, Lori, 25 low-context communication styles, 18 low-level conflict, 2 LRE. See least restrictive environment Lukianoff, Greg, 144 The Magic of Dialogue (Yankelovich), 129–30 magic real estate, 102–3, 117–18, 253, 377 Mandela, Nelson, 124 marginalization, 110, 114, 116, 231 Martin, Trayvon, 134 Maslow, Abraham, 241, 243, 287 Mateen, Omar, 134

398   

index

Mathews v. Eldridge, 59 McDade, Tony, 87, 357 McFadden, James, 378 mediation, 117, 147 adjudication and, 114 benefits of, 174–76 on campus, 190–92 caucusing within, 236–37 for criminal justice, 203–4 dialogue and, 161, 186 facilitated dialogue and, 122, 172–73 history of, 2, 190 insight, 195, 201–2 mediators, 192–93, 197 models of, 189, 195–96 narrative, 195, 199–202 pathways for, 105 power in, 206 problem-solving with, 189, 195–97 psychology of, 166 research on, 191 skills for, 195–96 social justice, 195, 200–201, 236 styles of, 193–95 training, 149, 203 transformative, 172, 195, 197–98, 201–2 VOM, 220–21 meetings, 351–52 mental health, 249–50 #MeToo, 79–80, 134, 183, 211 Mink, Patsy Takemoto, 1 misconduct, 218 missions of inclusive excellence, 164–66 model code sanctions, 279–80 Monk, Gerald, 199–200 Moody-Shepherd, Eleanor, 378 Moore, Christopher, 196 moral development, 49 Morrissey v. Brewer, 59 motivation, 326 multicultural change intervention matrix, 330 multiculturalism, 83, 136–37

multidimensional inclusive assessment model, 301–5 multipartiality, 92–93, 96, 114, 180–82, 187, 237 multiple lenses, 14–15, 30–32 mutual gain, 234–35, 236 mutual harassment, 221 NACUA. See National Association of College and University Attorneys narrative mediation, 195, 199–202 National Association for Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), 41, 154 National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA), 190 negative peace, 171, 186 negotiations, 53, 194, 231–32, 237 new cultural norms, 28–29 new normal, 375, 378–81 Nietzsche, Friedrich, 189 Noble, Cinnie, 146, 150, 167 non-disciplinary pathways, 140 nondiscrimination, 61–65 norms, 193 (not so) merry-go-round of conflict (NSMGR), 156–57, 159 O4S. See Organizing for Survivors Oberlin College, 155, 159–62, 165 objectivity, 78, 94–96, 235, 264, 270–73 offenders, 219–22, 259 Oklahoma University, 332 ombudspersons, 147–48, 154, 157–59, 161–63 online communication, 16 oppression on campus, 82 campus conflict and, 109–10 dynamics of, 90–91, 109, 112–15 facilitator neutrality and, 92–93

index  

in higher education, 109 in institutional responses, 110 privilege and, 185 religious, 84, 224 social discourse for, 200–201 socialization of, 78 spectrum model for, 112–15 systemic, 84–86 orchestrators, 193–94 organizational structures, 141, 154–55 Organizing for Survivors (O4S), 249 Palko v. State of Connecticut, 57 pandemics. See COVID-19 panels, 256 parenting, 132, 145 partnerships, 329 party-driven processes, 115–16 pathways. See specific pathways peace, 171, 186, 212, 239–40 peer-led RJ circles, 3 perceived appropriateness, 180 personal protective equipment (PPE), 357 personal responsibility, 46 perspectives, 326, 343 philosophy, 278–81, 332 Pichai, Sundar, 339 polarization, 131–35, 141–42 police, 81–82, 87–88 policy authentic collaboration in, 344–45 behavior, 112, 209–10, 217, 380–81 campus, 116–17, 140 change initiatives, 36 for communities, 295–96 for discipline, 288 for harm, 380–81 for sexual misconduct, 245–46 systemic change in, 316–17 violations of, 103, 115–16 zero tolerance, 218

399

politics diversity of, 20–21 leadership in, 371–72 political influence, 340 of students, 131–32 of transgender rights, 315 in U.S., 144–45, 343–44 positive peace, 186 Postal Service, U.S., 198, 203–4, 206 Powell, Lewis F., 58 power empowerment, 198, 202, 216–17 in facilitated dialogue, 185 in inclusive conflict excellence, 374–76 in mediation, 206 multipartiality and, 181–82 in negotiations, 237 systemic change in, 378 PPE. See personal protective equipment practical skills, 45–46 prejudice, 84 prelude approach, 120–21 privacy, 237 private conversations, 379–80 privilege, 26–27, 185 probation, 279 problem-solving, 180, 189, 195–97, 221–22 procedural justice, 29–30, 31, 59–60 procrastination, 313, 315 productivity data, 300 professionalism in adjudication, 80 on campus, 237 for facilitated dialogue, 179–80 in higher education, 8 “Professional Challenges Facing the Coaching Field From an Historical Perspective,” 146 professional development, 283 of staff, 328 in student affairs, 181 in student development, 308

400   

index

training for, 187 progressive legislation, 25–26 The Promise of Mediation (Bush/ Folger), 197–98 protests, 88–89, 93, 132–35, 173 psychology, 16, 231, 312–13 psychosocial development, 49–50 public health, 317. See also COVID-19 public institutions, 58–59, 148–49, 164–65 public perception of activism, 346 of discipline, 249–50 of higher education, 25–26, 114–15, 144 of protests, 173 of sexual misconduct, 60–61 of social justice, 96, 211 of spectrum model, 167 in U.S., 25–26 punishment, 278–81 authority and, 251, 287 RJ and, 241–42 for stakeholders, 381 tradition of, 286 Purdue University, 332 purpose, 326 Qualified Administrators (QA), 328–29, 334 quality-of-life violations, 222 questions case studies and, 378–81 climate surveys for, 35–36 collaboration and, 350 for collaborative inquiry, 67 on conflict coaching, 168–69 on dialogue, 142 on facilitated dialogue, 186–87 about IDI, 336 about inclusive conflict excellence, 124–25, 286–90 intercultural competence, 136 about leadership, 354–55

about restorative communities, 319 on RJ, 224–25 about shuttle diplomacy, 240 of social justice, 96–97 about student conduct, 306 race #BlackLivesMatter, 79–80 on campus, 87–88, 238 critical race theory, 1–2, 117–18 gender and, 83–84 in inclusive conflict excellence, 341 racial justice, 85–86 racially charged incidents, 352 racism, 345–46 rape, 17–18 reciprocity, 303–4 reconciliation, 345–46 records, 247 REDRESS program, 198, 203–4, 206 reentry circles, 221–22 reflection climate surveys for, 35–36 for collaborative inquiry, 67 on conflict coaching, 168–69 dialogue and, 142, 378–81 on facilitated dialogue, 186–87 group, 333 on IDI, 336 on inclusive conflict excellence, 124–25, 286–90 intercultural competence, 136 on leadership, 354–55 reflective learning, 326 reflective listening, 178–79 on restorative communities, 319 on RJ, 224–25 self-reflection, 90–92 on shuttle diplomacy, 240 of social justice, 96–97 on student conduct, 306 reflective listening, 178–79 reform, xi, 251

index  

Reframing Campus Conflict (Robinson), 130–31 Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing, 58 regulation, 60–61 the relational, 303–4 relational learning, 326 relationship-building, 161, 173–74, 203–4, 308–10, 318–19 in conflict management, 233 engagement and, 237 religious oppression, 84, 224 reporting, 246–47 research on achievement gaps, 19 on brain development, 48 on communication, 209 by Conflict Resolution Education Network, 107–8 on higher education, 19–20 on mediation, 191 research one institutions, 350 on spectrum model, 13 in U.S., 23, 155 on victims, 214–15 by WICHE, 22–23 residence halls, 286 resolution pathways, 30 resources, 238–39 respectful communication, 184 responsibility, 46 allegations and, 270–71 decision-making after, 273–78 in facilitated dialogue, 177–78 socialization and, 91 restitution, 279 restorative communities, 309–11, 319 restorative conferences harm and, 273–78 principles of, 259–64 student conduct boards in, 264–73 restorative justice (RJ), 31–32, 105, 117 in adjudication, 12 applications of, 211–15, 218 on campus, 310–11

401

circles, 318 for communities, 3 conflict resolution and, 157–58 essential factors of, 216–17 goals for, 215–16 after harm, 310 in higher education, 212–14 inclusive conflict excellence and, 259–64 language of, 256–58 leadership for, 285–86 learning and, 27–28 models of, 219–22 philosophy of, 278 punishment and, 241–42 restorative circles, 221 restorative victim-offender conferences, 205 scripted language for, 255–59 Social and Restorative Justice Foundation, 104 spectrum model for, 107–8 theory of, 209–11, 222–25 tradition of, 289 training for, 217, 223 restorative tiered behavior policy, 380–81 retribution, 27–28, 278 Riskin, Len, 196–97 risk management, 13–15, 26, 43–44, 55, 203 RJ. See restorative justice Robinson, Tosheka, 130–31 Roof, Dylann, 134 roommates, 376 Rose, Todd, 9 rules, 89–90 Ryor, John, 190 Sadat, Anwar, 229 safety, 42, 56, 63–65, 136–39, 185 SAGS. See self-assessment guides sanctioning tools, 121–22, 247–48, 278–81

402   

index

sanction options, 156–57 Scott, Walter, 134 scripted language, 253–59, 260–62, 265–70, 274–77 segregation, 24 self-actualization, 16 self-assessment guides (SAGS), 245 self-reflection, 90–92 separation, 221–22 sexual misconduct adjudication for, 245, 376 on campus, 132–33, 218, 308 campus rape, 17–18 circles, 317 policy for, 245–46 public perception of, 60–61 resolution and, 35 stakeholders and, 251–52 by students, 44, 248–49 Title IX and, 158–59, 161–62, 173, 211, 244, 345 SHRM. See Society for Human Resource Management shuttle diplomacy, 105, 117 applications of, 238 on campus, 228–29, 239–40 ethical considerations in, 236–37 for inclusive conflict excellence, 230 integrative learning with, 231–32 resources for, 238–39 student learning and, 232–36 skills advocacy, 347 coaching, 166–67 development of, 135–36 for facilitated dialogue, 180–81 interpersonal, 311 for mediation, 195–96 relationship-building, 309–10 for students, 308–9 transferable, 150–52 SMU. See Southern Methodist University snowplow parenting, 145

social anxiety, 312–13 social discourse, 200–201 social distancing, 36–37, 376, 379–80 social exclusion, 16–17 social groups, 83–84, 182–83 social identity, 1, 18, 110–11, 114, 182 socialization, 78, 82, 84, 91, 93 social justice, 31 adjudication and, 3 on campus, 113 civil rights activism for, 33–34 in conduct management, 87–93 conflict management and, 102 conflict resolution and, 111 definitions of, 42 foundations of, 83–85 in higher education, 13–14, 85–87, 109–10 history of, 79–82 inclusive conflict excellence and, 181–86 leadership and, 52 mediation, 195, 200–201, 236 objectivity and, 2, 78, 94–96 progressive legislation for, 25–26 public perception of, 96, 211 reflection of, 96–97 Social and Restorative Justice Foundation, 104 theory, 1–2, 112 social media, 85, 132–33 social networks, 192–93 social responsibility, 46 social services, 86 Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), 154 socioeconomic status, 112 Socrates, 129 Soong v. University of Hawaii at Hilo, 57 Southern Methodist University (SMU), 153 special program development, 122–23

index

spectrum model. See also specific pathways for adaptable conflict management, 29 for adjudication, 2, 63, 120–21 for administrators, 2 on campus, 171–72, 238, 245–46 for campus conflict, 101–2, 123–24 for climate-related conflict, 140 collaboration in, 9 for conduct management, 11–12 conflict culture for, 110–11 for conflict management, xii, 103–5 for conflict resolution, 176, 236 as continuum, 106–7, 131 for educators, 47, 107, 122–23 for higher education, 44, 117–20, 174 history of, 102–3 for inclusive conflict excellence, 1, 104, 116–17, 371–72, 376–78 language in, 288–89 ombudspersons in, 148 for oppression, 112–15 as party-driven process, 115–16 public perception of, 167 research on, 13 for RJ, 107–8 for rule violations, 89–90 sanctioning tools in, 121–22 in student learning, 66 third-party support in, 2–3 training for, 284–85 Spencer, Richard, 173 staff, 296, 298–99, 328, 353 stakeholders in adjudication, 177–78 alumni and, 235 campus, 15 collaboration for, 341–42 collaborative vision for, 32 in communities, 288 in conflict management, 95 diversity and, 18, 299

403

of higher education, 4 inclusive conflict excellence for, 282 punishment for, 381 sexual misconduct and, 251–52 students and, 181 subjectivity of, 270 systemic change for, 285 stereotypes, 54 Sterling, Alton, 134 Stevenson, Bryan, 20, 250–51 Stewart, D-L, 297 Stoner, Ed, 374 structural determinism, 117–18, 253–55 student affairs, 66, 69–70 diversity for, 355 DSA, 331–32 HESA leadership for, 330–31, 334 in higher education, 85, 349–50 professionalism in, 181 student conduct, 60–61, 80, 295–97, 305–6 ASCA, 11, 79, 143, 154, 213, 283 conflict management and, 124 student conduct boards, 264–72 in higher education, 283–84, 287–88 judgment and, 273–78 traditional, 280–81 student conflict, 42–43, 55–57, 66–67, 78, 354 on campus, 87–89 conflict management for, 89–90, 239–40 multipartiality in, 92–93 self-reflection in, 90–92 student development theory, 1–2, 7–8, 325 student learning active, 52, 54, 65 communities for, 52–55 conflict resolution and, 65 culture and, 322–23, 335–36

404   

index

identity development theory and, 50–51 outcomes, 300 principles of, 44–47 shuttle diplomacy and, 232–36 spectrum model in, 66 students. See also specific topics activism by, 228, 230, 346, 353 adjudication for, 19, 110–11 allegations for, 247 ASCA for, 11 bargaining with, 232–33 Black, 87–88 campus experience for, 95–96 civil rights for, 61 collaboration and, 141, 350–51 in communities, 10–11, 243 conduct management for, 14, 22–23, 112–13, 186, 245, 281–82 conduct of, 60–61, 79–80, 124 conflict coaching for, 12–13 conflict resolution for, 50–51, 62–63, 67, 108–9 consent for, 161 critical consciousness for, 90–92 development of, 210, 308 dialogue for, 135–36 diversity for, 4, 372 as educational consumers, 347 educators and, 2, 44–45, 54–55, 238–39 emotions of, 184–85 empowerment of, 216–17 encouragement for, 235 experiences of, 305–6 facilitated dialogue with, 63–65 free play and, 133–34 friendships for, 139 guest speakers for, 327 healing circles for, 121 higher education for, 281, 322–23 holistic learning for, 41–42 identity development theory for, 15–16 inclusive conflict excellence for, 2 insubordination by, 244–45

leadership for, 347 LGBTQ+, 23, 174–76, 182 mental health of, 249–50 misconduct by, 218 new normal for, 375, 378–81 participation of, 299–300 perspectives of, 326 politics of, 131–32 protests by, 93 public institutions for, 148–49 sexual misconduct by, 44, 248–49 skills for, 308–9 social services for, 86 stakeholders and, 181 stereotypes of, 54 student-led circles, 311–17 student life, 326, 373–74 support for, 196 under-resourced, 348 StudyCircle program, 311 subjectivity, 270 substance abuse circles, 312–13 substantive due process, 57 support persons, 259 support teams, 174 Supreme Court, 57–58 suspensions, 279 sustainable innovation, 3, 316–17 Swarthmore College, 249, 346 systemic change in adjudication, 89–90, 94, 248–50 for administrators, 241–42 on campus, 97, 347 in communities, 34 in developmental milestones, 28 disruption for, 3–4 in higher education, 21–22, 78, 82, 95, 249 inclusive conflict excellence for, 33, 253–55 institutional responses to, 86–87 in leadership, 101–2 oppression and, 84–86 for organizational structures, 141 in policy, 316–17

index  

in power, 378 in procedural justice, 29–30 for stakeholders, 285 Title IX for, 223, 348 transformation and, xii–xiii system transparency, 113 task forces, 283–84 Tatum, Beverly, 85 Taylor, Breonna, 88, 357 teachable moments, 50–52, 92–93, 95 “Tea Consent” (video), 317 Temple University, 146–47, 152, 167, 203, 347 terminology, 225n1, 256–58 theory. See also identity development theory for conflict resolution, 47–52 critical race, 1–2, 117–18 of fairness, 55–57 for inclusive conflict excellence, 96 of RJ, 209–11, 222–25 social justice, 1–2, 112 student development, 1–2, 7–8, 325 thick theories, 50 therapeutic mediator style, 193–94 third-party support. See facilitated dialogue; mediation Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Inventory (TKI), 148–49, 323 Title IX, 252 allegations and, 246 for discrimination, 94 sexual misconduct and, 158–59, 161–62, 173, 211, 244, 345 for systemic change, 223, 348 TKI. See Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Inventory Toward a Model of Inclusive Excellence and Change in Postsecondary Institutions (AAC&U), 297–98 town hall meetings, 352 tradition bias against, 185

405

in higher education, 186 of punishment, 286 of RJ, 289 traditional discipline, 209–10, 220 traditional sanctioning tools, 247–48 traditional student conduct boards, 280–81 training for alternative disciplinary practices, 116–17 for CINERGY® conflict management coaching model, 159–60, 162–63 for collaboration, 239 for conduct resolution, 35 for conflict coaching, 150–51, 168 cotraining, 116–17 for diversity, 113 facilitation, 284–85 mediation, 149, 203 for professionalism, 187 for QA, 334 for RJ, 217, 223 for spectrum model, 284–85 transferable skills, 150–52 transformation, xii–xiii, 3, 244, 303–4 transformative justice, 32 transformative mediation, 172, 195, 197–98, 201–2 transgender rights, 79–80, 315 TRHT effort. See Truth, Racial Healing & Transformation effort Trump, Donald, 231 trust, 9–10, 16, 260, 263, 288 Truth, Racial Healing & Transformation (TRHT) effort, xii, 32–33, 137–38 Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 124 Tutu, Desmond, 78 U-M. See University of Michigan, Ann Arbor under-resourced students, 348

406   

index

uniform disciplinary processes, 61 United Educators, 55 United States (U.S.) Constitution, 57, 114–15, 245 cultural change in, 79–80, 183 DACA in, 342–43, 350 demographics in, 23–24 discourse in, 131 Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 33–34 Education Amendments Act in, 348 fairness in, 94 First Amendment rights in, 114–15, 245 higher education in, 379 politics in, 144–45, 343–44 Postal Service, 198, 203–4, 206 public perception in, 25–26 relationship-building in, 203–4 research in, 23, 155 RJ in, 212 segregation in, 24 Supreme Court, 57–58 violence in, 134 University of California, Berkeley, 173 University of Colorado, 212–13, 218, 222, 332 University of Delaware, 146–47 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (U-M), 324–26, 328–29, 332 University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, 345–46 University of Texas at Austin, 155, 162–65 University of Virginia (UVA), 173 Ury, William, 196 U.S. See United States UVA. See University of Virginia

violence, 132–34, 230, 375 virtual learning, 255, 379–80 visible diversity, 35 vocabulary, 256–58, 262–63 VOM. See victim-offender mediation vulnerability, 91–92 warnings, 279 Washington v. Glucksberg, 57 Watts, Alan W., 322 Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), 22–23 Western Michigan University (WMU), 324, 329–35 White, Michael, 199 “Who Killed Collegiality?” (Ryor), 190 Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? (Tatum), 85 WICHE. See Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education Wichmann, Brooke, 158 Wing, Leah, 200–201 Winslade, John, 199–200 Winthrop Rockerfeller Foundation, 344–45 win-win outcomes, 236, 239–40 W. K. Kellogg Foundation, xii, 32–33 WMU. See Western Michigan University wokeness, 374 workshops, 163 Wrighton, Mark S., 342 Yankelovich, Daniel, 129–30

values, 303 values-based conflict, 230 victim-offender mediation (VOM), 220–21 victims, 214–15, 220–21, 238

Zehr, Howard, 214 zero tolerance policies, 218 Zimmerman, George, 134 Zoom, 373–75