http://businessconflictmanagement.com/blog/2009/06/neutral-selection-diversity-or-discrimination/ Conflict Management Expertise from F. Peter Phillips Fri, 18 May 2012 06:46:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 http://businessconflictmanagement.com/blog/2009/06/neutral-selection-diversity-or-discrimination/comment-page-1/#comment-60 Jack Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:37:05 +0000 http://businessconflictmanagement.com/blog/?p=119#comment-60 Mediation is typically private. It is a process that is supposed to be controlled by the parties for their benefit. If the parties agree, for any reason, that a mediator should have certain qualities or characteristics or experiences to best resolve their dispute, why should they not be free to make those choices? Where public funding is involved or where the mediation has a public audience or effect, those choices might properly be constrained. I (and I believe most people) would feel (or say they feel) that women should be free to select a woman to mediate. Why, then, should it be different if parties of the same race or religion want a mediator with their background. Should this be different from the selection of a therapist? What is the principle for constraining private choices? What we think is important should not necessarily override the criteria the parties consider important. It is another matter for an ADR provider to set its own standards for mediator selection, including an unwillingness to honor criteria of exclusion. The absence of diversity in the pool of mediators is a different issue, as is whether mediators are attractive to parties who don't share their background. These are matters of recruiting and training and cultural change. Mediation is typically private. It is a process that is supposed to be controlled by the parties for their benefit. If the parties agree, for any reason, that a mediator should have certain qualities or characteristics or experiences to best resolve their dispute, why should they not be free to make those choices? Where public funding is involved or where the mediation has a public audience or effect, those choices might properly be constrained. I (and I believe most people) would feel (or say they feel) that women should be free to select a woman to mediate. Why, then, should it be different if parties of the same race or religion want a mediator with their background. Should this be different from the selection of a therapist? What is the principle for constraining private choices? What we think is important should not necessarily override the criteria the parties consider important. It is another matter for an ADR provider to set its own standards for mediator selection, including an unwillingness to honor criteria of exclusion. The absence of diversity in the pool of mediators is a different issue, as is whether mediators are attractive to parties who don’t share their background. These are matters of recruiting and training and cultural change.

]]>