February 1, 2022 | Kebret Ketema (she/her/hers) | Program Director at a Portland-based nonprofit

Educational spaces of all kinds should have a deep commitment to conflict resolution, collective liberation, and community support if they are dedicated to student inclusion. White supremacy culture is understood to be a widespread ideology embedded in our beliefs and norms that teach us implicitly and explicitly that whiteness is superior to other ethnic or racial categories of being, evidenced by the disproportionate and systematic violence towards historically marginalized groups of people. Even in ostensibly progressive spaces, such as academia, the culture of white supremacy informs processes intended to mitigate and redress the very grievances these spaces purport to challenge. Here I address how white supremacy culture informs standard student grievance procedures, and how reframing restorative justice may yield more equitable and sustainable results.

Most universities have a standard procedure for student grievances that can be broken down into three steps: (1) the student attempts to resolve the dispute with the faculty member where or with whom the alleged problem originated, (2) a third party mediation group is introduced/intervenes, and (3) a high-ranking administrator or committee makes a decision through a final appeals mechanism. Most experts on the matter refer to this as the ombud process, introduced in the 1960s by experts in conflict resolution.[1] This process is meant to introduce a third party that is “impartial” or "without bias" thereby imitating an "objective" process, a sort of one-size fits all rationality for conflict resolutions. While there may be benefits to introducing a mediating party with no clear stakes, it obscures other forms of power, which may map onto race, gender, religion or sexuality. In other words, the third party mediator adds an additional bias, whether acknowledged or not. The problems aimed to be addressed by these bureaucratic, rigid, linear processes can serve as an out from sitting with conflict; we should lean into it rather than fear it.

Another aspect of third party mediation is that it abstracts the conflict away from the involved parties as a way to cool and comfort the situation, often more to the benefit of the offender than the offended. This fear of open conflict and "right to comfort" are understood as features of white supremacy culture in that they rely on policing emotion and limiting push-back against the status quo for the sake of perceived harmony.[2] The practice of "leaning in", especially in smaller institutions, offers a more restorative-focused approach to conflict resolution. This in-turn fosters real community-building and creates robust relationships capable of handling honest and transparent feedback practices necessary for diverse groups of people that will have disagreements.

By reframing conflict as generative, we can move towards restorative justice as “non-punitive interventions to heal harm done and strengthen relationships”.[3] During an unprecedented time of police violence and mass protests, the COVID-19 pandemic, and general socioeconomic turmoil, these traumas seep into our interpersonal relationships and create tensions in learning environments that can be alleviated with a values-based, iterative, conflict resolution process that is democratically-determined, alongside partnerships rooted in empathy.

[1] William C. Warters, “Conflict Management in Higher Education: A Review of Current Approaches”, New Directions for Higher Education, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1995. Accessible online.

[2] Tema Okun, “Right to Comfort”, White Supremacy Culture, 2021. Accessible online.

[3] Restorative Practice/Restorative Justice - Oregon, Oregon Department of Education, 2016. Accessible online.