Lindsey Pointer, PhD

Type of process: Circle

Conference Participants:

• 2 Students – Shane and Brian
• Student Advocate – Elizabeth
• Professor – Paul
• 2 Facilitators

Referring agent: Student Advocate

Factual Synopsis: A dispute over the grading of an assignment between a professor and two students expanded into an interpersonal conflict and rumors that damaged the students’ reputations within the department with other professors and their peers.

Narrative:

Shane and Brian approached the Student Advocate only after the conflict with their professor, Paul, had already been going on for several months. The conflict began when a group assignment that Shane and Brian had completed, which Paul had previously said was sufficient, was suddenly called into question by other students in the class who were building off Shane and Brian’s work in their own assignment. Paul decided the work was not acceptable and gave Shane and Brian only a day to re-do the assignment. They pulled two all-nighters re-doing the work, but still received a bad grade. In an email to the class, Paul expressed his disappointment with Shane and Brian’s work, which led to division and hard feelings in the class and embarrassment for Shane and Brian. Paul also informally shared what happened with other professors in the department. In another class, a professor told Shane that he wouldn’t get away with what he had done in Paul’s class there. The two students felt that their reputation in the small department was ruined and also felt that the grade was unfair and worried that it would negatively impact their ability to get into the Masters’ program. They prepared a lengthy report, detailing each incident in the ongoing conflict, and brought their complaint to the Student Advocate, who referred them to Restorative Justice.

Paul is a professor who really cares about his students and is passionate about his subject and creating an engaging and relevant learning environment for his students. He is also often disorganized and overwhelmed. When the co-facilitator and I met with Paul during the pre-conference, he regretted that there had been conflict over the assignment and his short fuse in the midst of a stressful class, but he did not seem to see the full impact of what had happened on Shane and Brian and their reputation, or how organization and clarity issues had contributed to the conflict.

Conflicts between students and faculty can be difficult because of the power difference that exists between a professor and a student. Often, the traditional education model only exacerbates this hierarchy. This difference in power can make it difficult for students to feel free to share their true experience and feelings in an incident of harm. In responding restoratively, it is important to be intentional about equalizing that power difference. That is largely accomplished through the circle process itself. Sitting on an equal plane, the use of the talking piece, equal time to speak, and equal respect and attention from all participating parties (modeled by the facilitator) all contribute to the equalizing experience. The ground rules and the facilitator’s confidence also contribute to the circle feeling like a safe space to share honestly. During the restorative circle meeting, the students and the professor had the opportunity to share their experience and hear from one another. They gained a better understanding of the other’s experience and Paul apologized for the stress and personal hardship caused to Shane and Brian.

Among the outcomes agreed upon were that the assignment would be re-graded by an outside professor, that Paul would look the structure of his class and assignments to identify areas of improvement regarding deadlines, clarity and balance of work, and that Paul will raise at the next department faculty meeting that the matter with Shane and Brian has been resolved and there are no hard feelings. He also planned to express to the faculty that there is a need in the department for a system and a culture that encourages prompt face-to-face resolution of conflict.

In the feedback questionnaire following the circle, Shane reported that he was surprised by the opportunity to understand the different perspectives of everyone involved and explained that now there is no longer repressed feelings and built up stress.

Below, you will find a general overview of the circle process the co-facilitator and I designed to respond to this issue. In any conflict, there is only so much you can do to anticipate what circle questions will be needed beforehand. As facilitator, you have to be ready to add another question round, or even suspend the structure of the circle, depending on what is needed to adequately surface impacts and needs and facilitate understanding. In this circle, I added question number three about misunderstandings in the moment because it felt like something the participants needed a chance to name.

Circle Guide

Welcome: Thank you all for being here and for taking the time to have this conversation. Explain the structure of the circle and the focus on impacts and repairs.

Ground Rules:

• Listen and speak with respect
• Respect confidentiality
• Only one person will speak at a time
• Any additional ground rules? Can we all agree to those ground rules?

Introduce Talking Piece

Round 1: What are your hopes for this meeting?

We are here to talk about a conflict around feedback and grading of an assignment that has also had an ongoing impact on feelings of comfort and ability to work together.

It is a long history, so there will be some different perspective on exactly how everything happened. We can all experience the same thing and have a different story (in the same way that today we will all experience this conversation but will leave with 6 slightly different stories). So today what we are focusing on is how each person has been affected, because impacts are always true to the individual and it is difficult for us to know exactly how another person was affected without hearing it from them. We will also be focusing on finding a way to repair the harm that has occurred and to move forward in a positive way.

Round 2: Speaking from your own personal perspective, how have you been affected? This can include personally, professionally, etc.

Round 3: In what ways have you felt misunderstood by the other person in this conflict?

Round 4: What is the main issue for you moving forward?

We are about to change gears now to talk about what needs to be done to make things right moving forward, but before I ask that, we want to ask a question that gets to the root of why you all work and study together.

Round 5: What is the thing you love most about landscape architecture?

In recognition that shared passion/path, how can we repair the harm from this incident so that you can work together?

Round 6: What needs to happen to put things right?

Talking piece is suspended and co-facilitator will guide this conversation until an agreement is reached. 

Round 7: Chance for a final word.

Close