To get to as many questions as possible. We will send out sort of a. Q.
A for anything we don't get to to make sure that everybody's questions do get answered after the webinar, and then actually, at the end of this whole thing, after the end of an hour, we're gonna have a networking portion of this.
So we're gonna leave the the zoom open. And you guys can talk amongst yourselves.
You can meet other title line professionals, and we'll let that go as as long as it seems reasonable to do so.
Just to give you guys. So you understand what new era is new At Err is a technology company.
And we create platforms and solutions that make dispute resolution easier, more efficient, and really most important, more accessible and significantly less expensive.
So our technologies include a full title, 9 Platform.
We do informal resolutions, and we have a full bench of train facilitators that actually handle that.
So everything from beginning, then in the entire process is virtual.
So you never have to go anywhere if you want to learn anything more about this, please contact me directly.
It's Colin, 2 else@newera.com.
So at this point, I want to get to what you guys are all here for.
I'm gonna introduce Joe. So Joe earned his juris doctorate from the Uic School of law.
I'm a Chicago, and so I really appreciate this it's formally known as John Marshall for anybody.
You're familiar with the schools in Chicago.
He also earned his master's of law in dispute.
Resolution from the Number one ranked Strauss, instituted to speed resolution at Pepperdine, Crusoe, School of Law.
Some of you guys are probably familiar with it. It's an incredibly interesting program that's doing amazing things in Adr.
So prior to his career in Academia, Joseph was an entrepreneur and a mortgage, lending executive.
He also teaches dispute, resolution as an adject professor of law, and has nearly half a dozen articles published in various legal journals, including recently proposing a new form of dispute resolution, that we will talk about that's specific for higher education institutions and that article
That he actually wrote about. This is in the Pepperdine Journal of the Speed Resolution.
Personally, some interesting things about Joe. He enjoys bass and fly fishing collecting gems and minerals.
That's something we could probably do. A whole webinar on on our own bio, hacking health and fitness.
I definitely would love to hear about that, Joe. And spending time with the outdoors with his wife and 5 kids as a person with one kid.
I can only imagine what 5 is like. So, Joe, thanks for being with us.
We really appreciate you being here, and really excited to hear what you have to say
Thanks. Colin.
So before we get started, I would just like you to describe your informal resolution process because there's a lot of unique things that you do, but also to give us some context.
And and I also like you to explain this, because I understand the way that you feel these things may be very different than how other people do it.
Sure thanks. My name's Joseph Alfie.
I'm here at Texas A. And M. University, and some of you may have heard me speak at a ticksa.
So you have a little bit of an idea that that I might do things a little bit differently before we get started.
I do want to make like a little bit of a note here that if I do use traditional she and he pronouns, it's just for ease of description when I'm talking about something, it's not synap synonymous with who complainants generally are complaints or
Respondents. And it's important to understand that the parties can and will span all gender and identities.
So I I tend to take a more active approach to facilitation.
I default to remote and shuttle facilitation.
I think that helps foster a sense of safety and comfort with the parties, and it also creates a confidential and safe space when we're in breakout rooms, and I think that helps lessen the anxiety and fear and it promotes communication.
And it also, I think, helps when there's advisors present it just, I think it just helps frank conversation.
Parties aren't afraid to be seen or heard, or see or hear another party.
So it it. I think it just helps keep the Id levels low.
So my process that might be a little different is is that rather than trying to?
And I'm gonna use the word mediate inter intermittently with facilitate.
So don't read anything into it, just for ease of conversation, but I mediate the resolution rather than the allegations themselves.
And so, in other words, we don't try to prove the facts, or find out what may or may not have happened, because I feel that's what the formal process is for.
That's where we discuss differences in the formal and informal process, and the fact that we're dealing with allegations and not proven facts.
So I put it this way. The formal process starts from today, and it looks backwards.
This is where somebody will tell their story and prove their case.
They get the full due process, the the flip side to that is that the formal process is lengthy it can be coercive.
Parties have little control over the outcome. So, conversely, with the informal process, we start from today, and we look to the future to a resolution.
So the parties are empowered to make their own decisions and their own agreements, and they have full control over the outcomes.
You know I don't make any decisions for anybody.
They make their own decision and since we're not really here to find out or prove what happened, or didn't happen so much, we just take the allegations that face value and explore ways to move forward, I think this allows complainants to choose whether they want to take a punitive approach or
Restorative approach, or some combination, it'll allows parties to be more creative on what the options that might not be on the table in a formal process so we're really getting, we we really try to get down to needs and wants versus just finding out cold hard facts so really
That's the basis of what I call the 2 plus 2 equal success formula which I could spend, you know, 2 h on its own webinar.
With that. So the takeaway is empowerment, creativity, but that also comes with a price.
So both parties have to be aware that both parties must agree.
We can't make one sense do anything, so that often means that there has to be flexibility and compromise.
If a party is not willing to do that, then maybe the informal process isn't for them.
So. So we have a a very good team of case managers who really set up the process and and go over the differences between the formal and the infirmal process with them.
So by the time they get to me they understand how it's gonna work, and and they're ready to look forward towards a resolution.
And you know, if it's not for them that's okay.
They can go back to the formal process at any time, and I tell that to to my parties as well, that nobody's making them finish out on an informal session if if they feel like it's not working for them.
We can go right back to the formal process, and in the informal process I think there's a a Miss Misnomer out there that that justice isn't done, that they won't get the same outcomes as they would in a formal process, and that's just not true
Responsibility is often taken, and oftentimes there's agreements, for, for you know, punitive sanctions.
Some of them are quite, you know, life changing, to be frank, but it's by mutual agreement, and that's really the difference. Here
Yeah, I, always I. I find it really interesting. You say that because coming from a litigation background that was always, I would have clients that thought I'm gonna go through this litigation process and I'm no win.
And you always ahead to counsel them. There's there's not a whole lot of justice in the legal system.
A lot of times. And you can actually find much better resolutions that feel much better by doing something that's informal going through a mediation process coming to some sort of resolution by agreement rather than duking it out and and thinking that at the end of the day you're gonna have some
Cathartic moment where you raise your hand and say I did it, because that almost never happens.
But this is great thanks for the background. As everybody knows, this, this webinar is about the psychology of dispute, resolution, and empathy in in the process of informal resolution.
So we're going to get to some questions that center around that stuff.
But as we lead into that, I really want to ask just some background questions of Joe, because even Joe mentioned, you know, he went to law school at 45.
So not a traditional route. So just like you tell us a little bit about your background, and how you got into the world of Title 9
Yeah, I you know, I I went in to law school as as an older student.
So I kinda had some life experience to to take with me.
I was very interested in the academic side of legal education.
My my passion is constitutional law. So I took every single possible course in con law.
I was in the International Human Rights Clinic for 2 years most of my published scholarship has been on constitutional law, and you know, civil rights and constitutional law and Title 9 fit together.
Of course, and I and actually was introduced to Title 9, when I took a deep dive because I had gotten a title 9 fact pattern for a national mood court competition that I was in.
So that bit of research really led me into the title 9 World.
And I just kind of resonated with it. So that's that's why I decided that when I got out of law school I knew I wanted to go in a higher education and teaching, and it just was a natural fit with title 9
So as you've gotten to this world, I can combine this a little bit.
2 questions. But what do you enjoy the most? And I hope hopefully this will rescue, because there's a lot of title.
9 professionals on here. But what do you enjoy the most about working in title 9.
And what do you find? Are the biggest challenges
Well, I'm not a very routine oriented person, so I don't know.
Maybe it's my AD or whatever, but I always have to have rapidly changing.
You know, scenarios to deal with, so as anybody who's entitled 9 knows there's never a dull moment.
It's always something new. So that really, I think keeps keeps me interested in.
You know the day to day, things that we see. It's it's just constantly changing.
And also getting in a higher education and getting in title 9.
I mean, how often do you get the opportunity to put some of your theories in the practice?
So that was very attractive, and then, from a personal standpoint, you know, as a father, I have 3 daughters, and I also have 2 sons, and I see them in every complaint and respondent that I deal with so so it really does affect me in a personal way.
Where I see the the these oftentimes young people, and you know the consequences of maybe some poor decision making.
And so it really it really I gives me a I don't know.
Just like a protective. You know where I want to do good for these these people.
No matter what side they're on, and no matter whether or not that there's gonna be some some punitive outcomes or not, you know.
It's still, it's still a a teaching moment, I think, and it's still an opportunity to help somebody make decisions that are going to hopefully benefit them in the future.
Yep. One question just briefly. I have about your background.
Is you? Obviously you mentioned you went to law school do you think a lot degree helps or hurts as a title?
9 professional. And there's a 1 million ways. That question can go, but I'll leave it open.
And just obviously I'm my background is a lawyer, and you're a lawyer.
So I'm just curious whether or not you think that that background is helpful, or actually can hinder what you do as a title 9 for for
Well, I you know a law degree is certainly not a requirement.
I do think it may help in terms of looking at.
Maybe the bigger picture as far as an institutions risk management is concerned.
It also, I guess, helps me work with attorney advisors that some parties bring, but it's, you know, other than law school really teaching you how to think in a more logical fashion.
You know I I I wouldn't say that. It's it's a a great advantage or disadvantage, but you know, and and that also, you know, if I wanted to go back and answer answer your last question about what what the biggest challenge is sometimes a a challenge.
Is working. Editorial advisor that comes in with a little bit more of an adversarial stance.
And and so I think, having at least some legal training helps me talk them into a more collaborative of view, because it's sometimes hard to watch young people make these kind of mistakes, and and and weak consequences and experience trauma.
And so we don't really need to be an adversarial space to do that I don't think that's productive.
So so really trying to keep keep more onto the collaborative side of things, I think is an advantage here
I would love to have an an an entire webinar, or at least a sidebar to discuss what you've seen.
Attorney, advisors do in your practice, but that would take too much time for today.
So I I can only imagine
Well, they've been overwhelmingly. It's been overwhelmingly positive dealing with attorney advisors.
I will say that I've been pleasantly surprised with 99% of them
That's awesome. That's good to hear. So let's get into the practice.
I mean, you've written, and really the crux of this webinar.
I know you've written and spoken about the psychology of a title.
9. Dispute. So this is gonna be a pretty general question.
But what particular psychological issues do you believe? Or at the forefront of any title?
9. Dispute
Well, I think I don't think it's a a matter of psychological issues per se. I think it is.
They psychology of dispute, so so. And that's an important distinction.
We're not looking at somebody, did something, or may, or did or did not do something because of the way they are personally, in a psychological sense.
I think the cycle psychology of dispute is what we're talking about here.
So in the course that I I include cycles of dispute.
What's the nature of conflict, how to recognize and deal with personality types, how to deal with high conflict, industry, cross-cultural disputes is another big thing.
Apology, and forgiveness, I think, is very important.
Negotiation is is in there as well. All these things come into play with informal resolution, and I think those are the things that that build the basis of the psychology of disputes
Interesting. So you've mentioned a lot of things here.
How do you deal with these issues? At the beginning of the dispute?
And as that process plays out
We'll try to stay out of the rabbit hole.
Well, you know we can open up a huge, you know rabbit hole with this, but and and for that you're right. Right.
Yeah.
I mean I I have a an entire 13 week class devoted to this, but I guess, recognizing these issues, early allows me to address and overcome them.
For example, being at an institution with a large international student population, cultural issues oftentimes come into play.
Recognizing these differences allows me to help parties with what I call perspective shifting, you know, recognizing the other is, is really what it is, and in those differences can often lead to friction between between students, because they don't necessarily understand where where another is coming from and
you know? Just I think it just helps with a better understanding of how a resolution may be possible when you get parties to start taking the perspective of the other.
Now, obviously, this doesn't always work. That depends on what type of allegations we're dealing with.
I mean, we're not always dealing with what we traditionally think of as a you know, title 9.
So let's say sexual assault is going to be very different.
Of course. Then, with a a civil rights complaint, maybe you know offensive conduct towards somebody's religion.
I mean that there we deal with such a wide spectrum of of cases.
So it's important to keep that in mind.
So that that raises a really interesting question for me, which is, can you give some examples of how you've seen some of these things play out in your practice?
We've had a couple of interesting ones lately, and and unfortunately I missed the ticks of talk when I was in Orlando, but they had one about Title 9, and dealing with people that are on the autism spectrum, and I've had a couple of
Cases that dealt with people that were on the spectrum and one of them was a stocking case.
So it turns out that the respondent was on the spectrum which which this person freely shared with me, and you know that can lead to some very tough situations.
Having to do with social audio awkwardness and behaviors that are outside of maybe accepted norms.
And so with the respondents permission, I was able to speak with the complaint about this, and and and help her shift her perspective.
It didn't excuse the conduct, but this new perspective allowed her to choose a more restorative rather than punitive outcome.
While still obviously maintaining what she felt was necessary for her.
Her safety, and well, being on campus. But that's a good, a a good, you know.
Example of of something that maybe is out of the norm. Another case was between international students and who we were dealing with certain cultural beliefs and norms regarding personal honor a version of public embarrassment saving face what, however, you want to call it so we had to really work.
In other words, you have to read between the lines, so to speak, to, to peel the onion and find out what's really going on, and what they really want to need out of out of something like this.
So that was a challenge.
Interesting, so more generally, when we look at a dispute, and you think of the world of a complaintant and a respondent.
When you, when a title, 9, dispute is initiated.
What are your biggest concerns? Psychological? We can use that word, I guess, as an adjective.
But your biggest psychological concerns for a complaintant who's saying something happened, and a respondent who may be saying, No, that that isn't what happened.
So you have there's a big dichotomy here right?
But there's obviously clear concerns for these folks if you're a complainer to respond.
And so how do you deal with those things?
Well, I think you know. Most importantly, is to be trauma.
Conscious. Some of these cases are our cause for great suffering, and the anxiety. 8.
And that goes for respondents and as well. There's oftentimes anxiety that has to be addressed, and I think that's where you know, like the the topic of our talk, you know, empathy compassion.
I think that's where that really comes in. But I think, ensuring that parties are going to be heard in any conflict whether it's title 9 or not.
A basic human need is to be heard. And so, by ensuring that.
And really letting them know that you are here to listen.
I think, by making those points early. You're not only going to listen, but you're going to be without judgment.
You're gonna be fair in your dealings. I think that's important.
And I think parties, you know, they come into these things with a certain number amount of anxiety.
They assume, sometimes that they don't they?
They come in assuming that maybe they're not going to be listened to, or they're not going to get a fair shape.
So I'd like to make the point early that everybody's going to be heard.
There's going to be respected. They're going to be listened to, and even though the outcomes may not be, or maybe they will be, we don't know how they think it's gonna turn out, or maybe how they want it's still going to be something, where they're they're
Going to be able to talk, and I think, by addressing those things early it's been my experience where you can.
You can physically see the anxiety start to drop away.
You can. You can see them getting more comfortable because it's it's a scary thing. I mean.
They come in thinking, Oh, my gosh! What's gonna happen to me?
So once you get, once you get talking and and make them feel comfortable and make them feel like you know they matter.
It makes a big difference.
So this is sort of the perfect foray into the conversation about empathy.
So it's always been my understanding that the intake process for title minus view can be for lack of better terms.
Maybe mechanical and cold. So how do you make sure that empathy is part of the process? From the very beginning of the initiation of the dispute
You know I can't answer for how other schools do it, and whether or not it's clinical or cold, or however we want to describe it, but I know that our civil rights team here at Texas A.
And M. They're all rock stars. They all care very, very much about conducting these cases with compassion and empathy and professionalism.
We have 4 case managers. We have 4 investigators.
They're all trauma informed and trained.
Thank do! An excellent job of supporting the parties.
So by the time they get to me, oftentimes they have a good idea of what to expect.
They're ready to engage they're excited about the prospect because it's been explained to them, in detail.
The differences between. You know their options of going to a formal process versus this, but you know, sometimes we get somebody who's particularly, maybe emotionally fragile or particularly anxious.
They're not sure if they wanna try the informal process, or or you know, sometimes we we have Case managers who who? Who will say?
This person told me they asked him to go through the formal process.
They don't want to subject themselves to it, but they're also afraid of the informal process, because they're not sure what to expect.
So sometimes I will do what's called a what I call like an introductory phone call or Zoom Meeting, or something like that, where I can try to put them at ease and explain the differences between the formal and informal process explain that they're important they'll be heard that
You know all the things that we just talked about and that it's a confidential space.
I explained to them how I keep everybody separate via the shuttle process, and that thing, you know, they aren't going to be seen or heard, or see or hear another party.
They don't want to now, if parties want to be together face to face, or even in a live situation, we can do that.
But I default to the shuttle for for safety reasons, and a lot of its psychological safety.
So once I explain to these anxious individuals, oftentimes I'll come back to the case manager, said.
You know what I feel much better I'd like to try informal, and also we we tell them that you know they can.
It. This is voluntary. No one's making them do an informal if they get halfway through an informal and decide that they don't like it, we can stop.
They can go to a different process. And you know, just again, oftentimes, when you talk to the students beforehand, and they they're very anxious.
They're very emotionally fragile. By the time we're done talking to them you can see the anxiety start to start to you know, ratchet down a little bit, and I find that when those students actually come to the informal process they're in a better space and I think that I think that
Makes a big difference.
So, I'm I'm curious, just from a very macroscopic standpoint.
Can you talk about why empathy is so important in these disputes?
Well, I mean empathy creates connection, connection, creates trust and trust allows for engaged communication.
The root of all dispute. Resolution is committed, so if we're not in a space to communicate then you're already behind the able plus.
It's just the right thing to do. We can't forget the human aspect of Title 9, no matter who they are complaining, or respondent, or other party.
They're human beings. They have feelings, they have fears, they have anxieties, and using compassion and empathy is so important, and goes such a long way to getting the parties in the right mind space to engage in a resolution.
So I think that is super important. We can't hope to get people together.
It is a stressful environment like this to talk about resolution.
If we can't get their mind in the right space to communicate
Sure. So it it sounds like a Texas Am. You guys have a pretty fulsome intake process, and that you're given a fair amount of information is the actual facilitator going in.
But I assume that a complaint in entering your office, you know, to actually start the process is scary, worried, concerned.
You've talked, a little bit about this, and a respondent feels the same way.
So you have that introductory information that says this person may have predilections towards Xyz, you know.
Maybe they see more anxious than somebody else, as you enter the process and actually start the facilitation.
How do you handle those emotions as you go?
Yeah, well, I work. I work closely with my case managers.
So you know a a complaintant gets a case manager or something gets separated. Case manager, and I'll go and meet with them and saying, How is this person?
What are your thoughts? You know. Sometimes they come to me with a concern, saying, Oh, this this particular person is very emotionally fragile, or they're very angry, or or whatever it is.
Everybody's different. Some people come into the process very clear minded.
They know exactly what they want in order for them to move forward.
Others are all over the place. They have no idea. And so I I just rely on my team to really kind of give me some background, and then I I I just again using those opening techniques to use.
Empathy, and and communicate that they're going to be heard, and that they're in a safe space to to combat any overwhelming feelings of, you know, anxiousness or or fear.
Sometimes a party might feel intimidated, because they don't have an advisor, but the other party does, because in infrastructure we don't require an advisor.
We allow students to bring an advisor. But we don't.
We don't require it, and we don't provide one in in the hearing on the formal process. That's different.
They get if they don't have an advisor, we give them one, but sometimes there is, you know, feeling that that one party might be intimidated so that's where that pre session phone call is helpful.
Or I can explain that I'm keeping everybody separate and that they're not, gonna you know.
Be ganged up on, or or you know, we wanna manage expectations.
I think is is the appropriate term we want to explain how things work, and once they're comfortable, with how things are work, and that they're gonna be in a safe space.
And it's just gonna be me and them talking. And I'm gonna be the one going back and forth and dealing with the other party.
I. It just goes a long way. I mean I I had one.
We're my case. Manager came back and she was like, you know, she she she's very interested in the informal, but she's very scared, and so I I gave her a call, and we talked about it, and she, you know, seem to really get more comfortable. By the time.
We actually did the informal she was like a different person.
She came in, and she was much more grounded. She was much more able to articulate what it is that this particular person wanted in order to feel safe enough to move forward, and I think it just worked out better because we we took care of those anxieties at the earliest possible stage
Makes sense. You you mentioned a little bit about formal. I don't want to dwell too much on the form.
Process. But I think there is something that's really relevant here which is similar to litigation.
And there. It's not completely analogous, but I think there are certainly analogies.
A title, 9. Formal proceeding can be long.
Grueling can wear on the parties mentally. So in that type of process, how do you make sure that you're interjecting compassion and empathy throughout the process?
To make sure that there's a level of comfort both in the process and with you, because, like, I said, that's just a grueling long and grueling process that really I think a lot of people who have an experienced it it's it's a very stark reality.
Once they're in the midst of it.
Yeah, that's true. Well, we're gonna utilize what we've already discussed.
And in some of those techniques of of do it early do it often, I think, just taking the patience to explain how we work to explain that they're going to be in these safe spaces.
I can't stress that enough, and that's why I really like the the remote and shuttle, because it it creates those safe spaces once they're comfortable.
Then they can start trusting in me, and they can start trusting in the process, and it leaves their attention and energy open, which can then be directed towards a resolution.
You know empathy and compassion, of course, doesn't end after the beginning stage, so I always let the parties know that if they need a break for any reason to let me know, I let them know that they're in control, if they feel this isn't working for them, they can end.
This session. If we get into our particularly difficult or emotional conversation, I share my empathy with them, and I think this is a big, a big plus here I oftentimes in the very beginning I will talk to especially complaint, and I'll just say I'm sorry You've had
To deal just something as simple as that. I'm not a apologizing, you know, on behalf of anything I'm just sharing some empathy and acknowledging that this person is going through a difficult time.
You can literally see the shoulders, just the the breath just drop, you know, like they're exhaling a huge amount of stress, because now they're thinking, Oh, my gosh!
This person actually is sharing empathy with me. This person is actually, you know, giving me a moment to just, you know, be okay with with being anxious.
Right and so just having this agreement that it's an acknowledgement, right?
You can still be neutral when you're doing that, but it's a validation of their very real feelings and concerns, and that leads them to feel heard.
And once we start opening that up, then I use active listing techniques, such as affect labeling or reading back what was said for clarity or reflect, restate and reframe, which is another way of reading back what they say, and so these techniques have actually been shown to have
A, a measurable biological effect on the human body.
It reduces your heart rate, it regulates breathing it, it literally cuts off in your brain stress and anxiety, and almost like fight or flight.
So when you start doing things like affect labeling, when when tensions are starting to get high and emotions are starting to get high, it really does calm people down so ultimately, we wanna create this this clear space to, you know, get back to what we're here, for which is looking at can this be resolved I
Mean, we, we, we, we have to set forth in the beginning.
I should have said this before. I always set forth in the very beginning.
What are our our goal is here with with anything having to do with title 9.
I tell people I 9. At the end of the day the goal is, do you feel safe enough to get your education?
That's like keeping your eye on the ball, and I'll oftentimes refer to that at different points during the process.
Maybe we've we've made a little progress. Maybe we've agreed on some some, you know.
Milestone. Then we check back. Okay. We made this agreement.
How do you feel? How do you feel about this? Can you look yourself in the mirror and say I've done something good for myself?
Can we? Can you look yourself in the mirror and say I'm on my way to feeling safe enough to get my education, because that's the goal.
So that it really helps them stay on track
That makes a ton of sense. You've mentioned something that I've I've often thought about in this context, which is, I would almost say, the dichotomy between neutrality and empathy.
Right so if you're expressing empathy, somebody might feel he's on my side, and that's not the purpose of this.
You need to maintain your neutrality. So if you could just discuss a little bit about things that you should not say in order to maintain neutrality, even if you want to demonstrate empathy
Oh, that's a great question. We always have to remember that we can show empathy and compassion and respect for the parties without advocacy.
And so I just bring it right out in the open very early.
I will tell people I am not an advocate.
I'm not on your side. I'm not on their side.
I'm not going to make any decisions for you. I'm not gonna give you legal or academic advice.
I won't speculate. What if anything, a decision maker may or not decide.
If this were going to the formal hearing. I do talk about the risks of going to a formal hearing, and what outcomes might be possible.
But I'm not gonna speculate with them, because that's oftentimes a question that comes up.
And what do you think that's gonna happen? I'm like, no, we're not gonna do that.
So that brings up, I think, a a a big question of what should the facilitators want be?
Should they be active in providing options for resolution, or should should facilitators be stoic and try to be, you know, defer anything to air on the side of you know, complete rigid neutrality, and I think I'm of the opinion that we should
Be active for a couple of reasons, as long as they know that we're not advocating right?
We should be helping them. Look at what options are available, and we we have to understand that oftentimes, you know both complaints and respondents have no idea what's available.
They don't know what our possibility. So it's our job to show them various ways that we can explore.
But there's there's a fine line between influencing the parties and providing options.
So you have to be cognizant. And so again I'll check.
Them through the process and say things like, remember, you know, I'm going to give the other party this same opportunity.
You know I I you know I show compassion and empathy equally here.
So we're not you know. We're not taking sides, but we can take a more humanity approach.
I would call it, in helping people down the path. I mean, that's what the facilitator does right?
We, we facilitate, we, we help people choose options.
Makes sense, I'm gonna make sure that we get our 15 min and some to jump a couple of questions here.
Yeah.
How can you? You mentioned advocates and advisors?
How can you use them to maintain comfort and to an empathetic environment?
Or or can you, I guess, is the question. But can they be a tool?
Yep.
Yeah, thanks for bringing us up. Yeah, it's important, you know.
Again, we, we allow advisors, but we don't require them here in in the informal process.
They may or may not be attorneys, but I've had people bring friends.
I've had people bring factory. I've had people bring department heads and also parents.
Which I've actually really enjoy. Ipad, very, very good, comrades with parents.
That were acting as advisors. So you know I see the benefits, and having someone provide support.
I always tell people, we're in these breakout rooms.
If you want to privately confer with your advisor all they have to do is ask.
I'll excuse myself, and then when they're ready, they can send me a little chat message, and I'll come back in if if there's an attorney advisor involved, I always make sure to let them understand this is an adversarial we're in.
A confidential space, so we can talk frankly. Another important thing is, is, I don't share information with the other party unless I'm given permission.
So sometimes in the course of discussion, we might bring up some some information that might help shift perspectives or provide context.
But I still always ask, hey, that's a good point.
Could I share that with the other party, and and that again give them control?
You know this is a informal process where the parties, you know maintain control.
If there's an attorney involved, I'm always yeah, definitely. You gotta.
You gotta be clear with this. You gotta tell whichever party you're dealing with. Hey?
We can talk freely here, but always defer to your advisor for any advice or council.
It's not me, it's on anybody else. If you have a question, talk to your advisor, if you want me to step out of the room, I'll step out of the room this brings down advisor anxiety sometimes advisors.
Are just waiting for you to like. Show some sort of, you know advocacy or they're gonna share, you know, oftentimes parties come in again.
Thinking that they're not gonna get a fair shake.
I I tell again the advisors, hey! We're dealing with with allegations and not proved facts.
I don't have any reason not to believe you as a complaintant.
I don't have any reason not to believe the respondent. So we're just going to take things at face value and move forward and see what happens.
Makes sense. I know Alex is gonna kill me. We're supposed to be a Q.
And a time. I just wanted to hit one thing because I think it's particularly interesting.
You've developed this concept of micrometations, and you've written about it in Pepperdine's dispute.
Resolution law Journal. Can you just tell us very briefly about this concept and why you think it's effective and how empathy can play into it?
Sure. So I wanted to explore the space between, you know, having no appeal.
And what you, in other words, what do you do with the things that don't rise to level of a civil rights question or a title? 9.
Question. We're talking things like offensive conduct, microaggressions.
Things like that. So micro medieval really fills the gap, and it is super informal.
So if you think of a spectrum, you know, with the hearing, the formal process, hearing being on one side, is being formal, and you know no action is being, you know, 0 micro mediation is step one, and then you go to something like informal.
Resolution. And so really it is teaching schools ways that they can maybe train student mediators I'm a big fan of law school clinics, having students come in and do the AD hoc like immediate interventions, educational conversations.
Whatever you want to call it. And really, it's just getting the parties to some facilitated dialogue the differences is, there's no expected outcome.
There's no agreement at the end, or or sanctions, or anything.
It's just talking through these these issues that by themselves don't rise to a civil rights level.
But maybe they could if they're left to fester, you know, over time.
So that that's really the general
Makes perfect sense. Kate, I want to jump into questions, Alex.
I know you had a particular way. You wanted to handle this.
So if you want to unmute and ask the questions that have come up in chat, there's been a bunch of stuff going on I'm apologizing.
I haven't been following that closely. It's been more engaged in this.
Good.
But however, we want to get these questions answered, I would love to get them answered, and just as a as a side note before we jump into that, we will make sure.
We recorded all these questions, and we will get you answers to them, even if they're not answered. Live
So I I do want to point out that if you want to unmute yourself and ask a question, you're more than welcome to do so.
There were 2 questions that were similar, one. I'll read both of them really quickly, but one was, do you have a script or any standard language you use at the beginning to set the stage during an intake or informal resolution that you would be willing to share which was similar to
Is there a specific language that you use to validate the party's feelings?
Oh, I think I'm reading the wrong one.
But that's okay, which I agree is important, but that you can utilize to also remain neutral
Sure. So our case managers and I have developed some verbiage.
I think that is useful in the because, you know, we offer informal resolution early and often.
That's basically our mantra. Early and often the the instance of a first report.
The first contact with one of our case managers, and they will bring up informal resolution.
It, it, it really is. This quick description of how informal resolution differs from the formal process.
That's really the main thing that that we need to go through.
I don't know. At half a tech check with my title 9 coordinate, or if I could share the the particular verb, so maybe Colin and I can work on that.
But really early and often, and and it's it's just India describing the differences mainly the control aspect where the the formal process parties don't have very much control versus the formal pro or informal process where there were parties, you know, retain control and empowerment to make their
Own
There's also one sent in before the webinar from Jillianne.
I believe that's how you say your name. And she's asked can a trauma informed approach create issues of bias by the investor, even if the treatment is equal, what can I do to?
Avoid this and make an appeal less likely
I guess I I'm not quite understanding how, being Trump informed when dealing with somebody can create a bias or be grounds for an appeal.
I mean, and I guess you if you get 10 people in the room and ask them what trauma informed process is, you're probably gonna get 13 different answers.
But I think at the at the you know. At the beginning case, managers are a lot differently because they're dealing with the actual allegations they're doing intake reviews, or they're going through.
You know what is alleged to have occurred by the time it gets to me.
It's been, you know, talked about that informal isn't the place to try to prove your case right?
If I, if in in in many, complainants, don't choose informal resolution for that that reason that they they want to prove that something did or didn't have right, or somebody did something, it's really allowing the complainant to choose how they what what their needs or wants are because
Oftentimes a complaint, it will will say something like, Yeah, I went through a very horrible thing, but I'm not interested in going over these things.
I just want X, y, and Z. In order for me to feel safe enough to get my education. Well, now, we're dealing with something that we can talk about in informal resolution, and so
There's not a lot of, I guess, worry for me in the informal process of correcting any bias lines by by being empathetic or compassionate to somebody in in regards to their trauma.
Katherine Webster was raised her hand to ask a question.
Yes, thank you. So my question was, I know, that you had mentioned early in the presentation about that creativity with the infirmal process, where Al allowed some complainants to Kater.
The approach, whether they wanted to be more sort of or potentially punitive.
And I was curious as to what that looks like, as from my experience, the invite.
There is not because both parties agree upon it, as you say, the informal doesn't typically have a punitive aspect because they're not assigned a responsible finding.
So if you wouldn't mind sharing some examples of what that might look like for complainants in more of a what that punitive aspect would be for some of the individuals who have done informal support
That's a great question. And and I think that's one of the biggest persistent myths, not informal resolution is that somehow the justice isn't going to be done, that that they're not going to be potential punitive outcomes.
And that's just absolutely not true. And that's also one of the reasons why many schools do not feel comfortable.
Having like sexual assault cases or rape allegations done by informal resolution.
I mean, there are certain things, obviously, that the title 9 coordinator, is going to determine what's reasonable like.
We, you know, any kind of violence. Physical violence is definitely not coming to informal resolution, but oftentimes a complainant, even with a very serious allegation set, what we'll tell us.
I don't want to subject myself to the the, you know, coercive formal process, and I want, you know, something punitive as an outcome, and we get, I mean, I've negotiated withdrawals from the university permanent withdrawals multi
Year, Suspensions. Loss of leadership, positions in in student government in the core, monetary restitution, all kinds of stuff.
And that's that's really where we're.
Creativity comes into mix, because we have to understand in the formal process, at least here.
I don't know how other schools do do it, but in the formal process the only thing on the table is, did they or did they not, violate your university's policy regarding civil rights?
And if so, how should they be punished by the university? That's it, that's all.
It is. On the informal side, almost anything is on the table, and so why would a respondent agree to something like this?
Well, and this is where attorney advisors are very, very helpful because they can talk sense into their their advisees.
We need to look at the potential risks of going to a formal process.
So it could be like, Hey, look! Here's what's on the you know, if you've got a a sexual assault with incapacitation.
Okay, that's that's an aggravating factor.
You are. Probably if you're found in violation at a formal process, we don't know how it's gonna go.
But if you are found a violation, you will likely be expelled.
That's just the reality of it. So this complaining may say, you know what
If they voluntarily withdraw, and if they agree to x, y, and z, in order to make me feel safe, that's what I that might be a good deal for the respondent, and oftentimes and their advisor is gonna say, yeah, you want to take that one to run because it's
A certainty of outcome. They know what they're going to get versus flipping the coin, going to the formal process and losing everything.
Conversely, I have to tell the complaints. Hey, look!
We never know how things are going to go. I don't know what's gonna come up in an investigation either to you.
After all, of the evidence has been sent it through, and the you know, the witnesses have been interviewed.
Whatever the the decision maker might come up with a decision that you're not having with so oftentimes.
That is why complainants, then, will appear to be flexible.
But remember, it's not what I think should be done.
It's what they think as long as it. It's reasonable to the school, because the school's got a balance.
Safety of the community at large, right? We're not gonna have, you know, some some, you know, terrible like domestic violence case go with with and even if both parties are if if the outcome is safe, we're not gonna agree we're a party to this right, I have veto power, I can say
No, that's not reasonable. But the complaintant might say this agreement allows me to feel safe enough to get my education, and if that means them allowing a maybe a non traditional type of outcome as long as everybody's in agreement and it passes our our title 9
Coordinator review these things and our risk management executive reviews, these things. If everything's reasonable, that's their agreement. They made it
This is great. I I hate to cut us off. We're we're at the hour I wanna make sure that we open up networking there's a couple of things that we do want to talk just very very quickly about I'm going to turn it over to anthea we are doing.
A title, 9 mediator training. So I want her to talk just a little bit about that
Yes, thanks. Colin, so I'm the customer success manager here at New Era.
Adr. And I wanted to mention that we're always looking for experience, diverse, neutral, to add to both our title, 9 Bench and our commercial bench, we do, as Colin mentioned, offer some title, 9 trainings through through third party, and if there's any interest please do let me know in
The Follow up email. Alex will include a document outlining the minimum requirements for joining our bench, and, you know, feel free.
If you're interested to take, look and reach out to myself or call in.
If if you have questions or interest in this
That's perfect. And in addition, in the follow up email, well, we have Alex correct me if I'm wrong, that that the alias is Title 9 at New Era, com.
If there's questions that you want to get answered, if you could submit those to that alias over the next day or so, we'll make sure in the follow-up email that we get as many answers as possible out of Joe.
Thanks, Joe, to you guys as possible. And in addition, just, you know, gratuitous plug for New Era.
We're very interested. We have a super trained bench on this, and a platform that handles everything virtually.
If you are under resource, if you feel like you don't have the bandwidth if you need help, we can help with these things, and we would love to help so if that's of any interest you please.
Contact us. Alex is now going to explain how we're gonna open up networking, and we will let everybody talk amongst themselves.
Thank you guys so much for joining this. Thank you to Joe for doing this.
It was fantastic tons of knowledge, tons of interesting stuff. So once again, thanks everybody for being here
Thanks for having me
So I was thinking that we can leave the meeting open for as long as you guys would like to be here.
So if you want to talk amongst each other and feel free to chat with one another
I'll try to stick around for a little bit in case other people want to ask some questions.
Yeah, that's great. And if there's any questions for us at New Arrow, we're here, too.
But nobody's obligated to stay. It's just an open forum for anybody who wants to ask questions or or learn more
And thanks for the questions, too. There they were, very good. So what?
Some of the questions in the chat that we weren't able to get to.
You know, Alexander, maybe you can compile those, and we can try to answer them.
Yep. I took. I copied them so we can send them answers, so we won't leave them hanging if you will
Sounds good
Hi
Hi Joe! My name's Greg. Just a quick question.
I'm a title line, a new timeline investigator up here at a Holy Cross and Worcester, Mass.
Started in early December. I was just curious why you were referring to the formal process as coercive
Well, because there is that element of they don't have as much power right?
They don't get the direct health things go. The university is taking the investigation and taking the hearing and and how, wherever that leads, they're going, they don't.
You know they're they're kind of along for the ride in that respect.
A lot of the times. People feel that being, you know, interviewed and direct, examined and cross-examined, is coercive.
And and it's very stressful and very, very anxiety producing and and I can't tell you how many times I've had complainants tell their case managers, and tell me I am absolutely not gonna do that.
But I still want an outcome that I can live with. And so that's where we do our best to try to deliver those outcomes without having the parties have to go through that formal process
That's helpful. Thank you.
Thanks. Gregory.
Yes, have a great day
Hey, Joe, this is Amber Morgan. At Transylvania University. If you don't mind.
Yes.
I have a quick question for you. Thank you first off. Thank you so much.
Your information was extremely helpful. I Miss G. While while you were talking, so I recently I'm a titleline coordinator, and I recently worked to mediate an informal resolution, and it was a sexual assault case, and it was this this was a situation where the
respondent had a very aggressive attorney, and would not agree to any of the punitive measures that the complainant had put forward, and the complainant, you know, didn't want to go through hearing was adamant that you know that was not gonna happen she did end up
resolving, informally, they both agreed. I felt personally very uncomfortable with why was agreed upon in the mediation, but I know it's not about me, and what I what I would want, but it was just a difficult situation so I mean just some thoughts.
On, you know I this was right. A case where I felt like the respondent was also getting some really bad advice from their attorney, because the there was quite a bit of evidence to show I personally felt that if it went to a hearing, they would have been found responsible, and they just were refusing to
Accept any punitive measures because they felt like it was an admission of responsibility.
So maybe maybe just some your thoughts on how to handle that if it ever comes up again.
Yeah, boy, I've certainly dealt with that, especially when there is potential criminal concerns.
You know, as we know, any kind of sexual assault, or or or domestic, you know, issues like that.
They're just because there isn't an active criminal component doesn't mean that that there can't be one in the future.
So I've definitely had respondents. Attorney saying, Hey, look!
We can't. We want to give the the the complaint.
You know as much as we can, but we can't admit to something that could be seen as a legal admission in writing.
Right. That's a very valid Kate concern.
And so we've if and and think thankfully.
Both sides had attorneys, so we were able to have frank discussions that I would say, Okay, this is the the respondents concern.
It's a valid concern. What is important to you as a complainant.
Do you want them to take responsibility on paper? If so, maybe informal isn't the way to do.
Maybe we need to go to the formal process and then it's all about getting found responsible for civil rights, violation and having that being writing and and but you also have to take the risk that it may not come out the way you want it to come out right?
Conversely.
If it's not important for the complainant that there's some be some sort of responsibility on paper, and oftentimes there isn't.
Remember when I when I take people back to what's the goal?
The goal is for you to feel safe enough to get your education.
What does that look like to you oftentimes, when they're allowed to articulate that it is well, I don't want this person on campus, or I don't want this person being able to come to my housing unit.
I don't want them taking the same classes. I want them, you know, out of out of my, you know.
You know, schedule, so to speak.
There might be other things that the complaintant actually wants and needs in order for them to feel safe enough to get their education, so that's kind of a way we're we've negotiated where there might be a finding of no responsibility or even a withdrawal of the complaint so
There's nothing that could be seen as a legal admission.
But that doesn't mean there wasn't punitive sanctions.
I mean, I've negotiated where a complaint was withdrawn
But the respondent voluntarily disenrolled from the University
That to the complaintant was what they wanted. They wanted this person out of sight, out of mind.
Don't ever want to run into him again. So we were able to come up with an agreement.
That kind of met both both people's needs and wants as closely as possible.
If you get a very adversarial attorney and and maybe this is where, having some legal experience is is is good.
But I'm not intimidated by attorneys and I will set them down, and I will tell them we're not here to be our serial if you want to try this case, do it in a court.
Go to the formal process. But here's the risk, I call to come to Jesus.
Talk. Here's the risk that your responding is taking by going to the formal process.
Don't forget the respondent is the one telling their attorney what may or may not have happened, so their version might not be, you know, accurate.
So I've had to stop a session in the middle of a session.
Go to my title. 9 coordinator, and get permission to share some evidentiary items that we had, that the respondent and the responders lawyer didn't know we had, like.
Maybe, like there was text messages. Maybe there's photographs and say, I know something you don't know.
I don't know how this would play out in a formal process. But here's what we're dealing with now, do you want to change your adversarial tone?
And that worked. Then they said, Oh, let me talk to my client.
20 min later they came back, and now they were all willing to negotiate
Yeah, it. In this particular instance. I there were actual text messages of admissions of what had, what the complaintant said happened, and I did share that with the respondent in the attorney, and it was still a no yeah, no, absolutely not not gonna not gonna I mean, they agree.
Yeah.
Too hardly anything. And it was just personally difficult for me, because the respondent was resident advisor.
Yeah.
So to me, I felt very conflicted in having them remain in their role. But the I you know, the the school was out, the school was okay with it.
Yeah, that that that's an interesting one. Did it have to do with?
An insistence on them taking responsibility for this particular issue, or or elegation on paper.
In other words, you know we have our system regulation away to 101, which is our civil rights code.
Here. And so yeah, oftentimes an attorney will tell the respondent.
You can accept that responsibility because that could potentially open you up to civil or criminal ramifications.
But of we take that off the table, and there isn't a finding of responsibility.
Is, that doesn't mean we can't have punitive outcomes along with it, because it it it's by agreement and oftentimes again, it's it's a risk analysis that that everyone has to do what are your chances, because if this goes to a formal process formal
Hearing what you have to lose should you get found, you know inv violation.
And and you know sometimes you're gonna get against a a hard case, and they don't.
Wanna you know, negotiate
And that that's that's kind of a tough one.
Yeah, thank, you.
We would put, we would basically default to the formal process.
Anyways, and and deal with it that way
So you're saying that there's a possibility you you negotiated a case where the agreement wise, hey?
I respondent, if a complainant with Drew the complaint, the respondent would withdraw from the institution.
Okay.
Oh, absolutely! I've had them. I've had them pay large cash restitution to let's say, pay for therapy.
I've had them take, you know, mult multi year suspensions, and then they have to petition their way, for they basically at the end of this 3 year suspension.
You have to petition the title 9 Coordinator for for the operator to apply to come back, which is in effect, you know, a voluntary dis enrollment.
I've had people voluntarily just a role. Because that's that's on paper.
Not an expulsion
So that is a benefit to that respondent, even though they're taking a huge hit.
It's still a benefit, you know. It's it's risk management.
For the respondent
And as long as we can, you know, balance it with the safety and well being of our campus at large, we're gonna look some some offers do not meet that balance, and and we veto on.
We just say, No, that's not reasonable. We're not gonna do it, you know.
If if if there's a particularly egregious case, and and the even if the party's agree, oh, yeah, there's going to be no finding, and you know you're placed on, maybe just a very light probation.
No, that's not gonna work. We'll we'll we'll veto that.
But if there's a punitive outcome and it makes the complaintant feel safe, do we really need to get them on paper?
That they're in violation. I don't think so.
Yeah, that's true. Thank you.
Joe quick question Dana King asked this, and this is pretty early interesting to me because of the amendments that may be passed, and whether it be April, may or whatever.
Okay.
But Dean asked, you mentioned facilitating micrometations when conduct may not reach a civil rights violation?
But with the 2020 final rule, my understanding and my institutions practice is that we have to have a formal complaint to start it.
Any kind of informal resolution how do you initiate those?
I often feel like our hands are tied when the conduct does not rise to a policy.
Violation, but is concerning
Yeah, so.
Micrometiation is not just for a title. 9.
Office it it it could be used in any type of educational setting.
It could be a faculty member in class sees a disturbance between 2 students.
Maybe some offensive languages use, maybe some racially insensitive words were uttered.
Does that necessarily rise at the title? 9 level?
No, of course not, because there's freedom of speech, no matter how.
Obnoxious or or hurtful it may be, you know, depending on your schools, student conduct code, and you know I don't know how you deal with that.
But micrometiation will be a a way to facilitate some dialogue in lieu of a formal title.
9. Complaint now with the new Biden proposed Regs.
Where we can do an informal without a formal complaint.
That kind of opens up that possibility for Title 9.
Now, but you know in in in an overall sense, I don't think there's anything stopping a school from getting to students, pulling them out of class and saying, you need to go talk to the student mediator right now and we're gonna work through this this issue that you're
Having, you know. That's really where we're micro radiation is going to come in.
But I I I I do think that that the the new Biden Regs are going to see a very big, uptick and informal resolutions, because of the ability to offer them before even we get into the process with a formal complaint
Okay. So I think that's it, unless anybody has any other questions.
Once again! Thanks everybody for for being so engaged. Thanks, Joe, for doing this, and we'll have more content and stuff.
But there will be a follow-up email coming out. That will answer any missed questions and give everybody some more information.
So once again. Thanks, thanks so much, and everybody have a great week
Alright. Thank you. All appreciate it.