The Office of the Provost has scheduled a series of “Hard Conversations” for two years now. Instructive of viewpoints by panelists, these events do not seriously allow attendants to work through differences. That is the result of a top-down view of learning, rather than a participatory one. It also implies a merely ornamental view of the kinds of discourse and practices needed for people to actually weave together social trust through on-going authentic disagreement.

Spring 2024, too, showed the university suffering from polarization and poor practices of community and disagreement. The encampments self-righteously insulted those who disagreed with aspects of their practice or platform, while hecklers harassed those inside the encampment circle. Widespread distrust broke to the surface between many students and the administration, and rifts opened among faculty. Some faculty left the university as a result of the spiraling distrust, and many students left the experience disaffected, offended or more cynical than ever.

There are many causes of these loosely related examples of weak social ties. One of them, however, is so ordinary as to easily go unnoticed: how the university handles complaints from students, staff or faculty. Does Case Western Reserve University have a consistent, unified, humane, restorative and educational manner of handling the everyday times when someone is upset enough at another in this working environment to lodge a complaint against them, for whatever reason? The answer is no, no, no, no and no.

The manner is not consistent. Norms differ between schools and the central administration.  

The manner is disunified. For legal and historical reasons, there are multiple channels and reporting agencies, both within and without the university, in some offices and then in others, for processing the variety of kinds of complaints to which university life gives rise.

The manner is often not humane. Many instances involve cold, bureaucratic processes, made with rigid fear on multiple fronts, running from forming good relationships between people, rather than running to form them.

The manner is not restorative. Those who are offended often do not see the accountability and adjustment of those who offended, and those who were unfairly accused often have no recourse to see the accusers come to account themselves. The damage stays alive and present in patterns of erasure and minimization, stigma and avoidance.

The manner, finally, is not educational—the greatest irony of all. Parallel processing in institutions is the idea that all parts of a mission-driven institution participate in the core mission. Ours is educational. But is conflict resolution here a chance to learn from each other, truly?

This university does not know how to handle conflict. But I have a simple proposal for conflicts of all kinds. The goal should be to bring about face-to-face resolutions born of communication, accountability, mutual learning and restorative justice. I say, “the goal,” because in many cases, there are solid, moral reasons to protect one party or another from aspects of the process. But the goal sets the standard and drives reform, to scrutinize each practice to see if it is trying the best it can to be worthy of this institution’s educational mission.

Here is how the proposal works. The university should have an ombudsperson office with adequate staff trained in conflict resolution, professional confidentiality and restorative justice. The default assumption should be that ombudspeople handle all non-legally driven complaints (for the legal processes require specific legal standards and practices). This is what the staff would do:

Check to see if there is credible evidence that any party is dangerous in any way to others.

See if the parties are willing to talk, work through differences and learn from each other.

When not, compile a multi-sided account of the incidents or relationships in the complaint—what each side sees and can show.

Then, share these with the other parties and see if some softening of the situation can occur as a result of hearing others.

Recommend further accountability measures as called for, only after these initial attempts at weaving society together, mending trust and co-learning.

That the university does not have some such office is backwards. Ombudsperson offices are common in schools. That we do not aspire to mend community when it is broken is weak, short-sighted and thoughtless. Making a complaint should be a courageous call for community. Resolving a complaint should be an enduring answer.