Monday, October 24, 2011

In Praise of the Peer Mediator- Young and Strong

Over the past few decades, mediation has grown in popularity by leaps and bounds. Today many potentially ugly disputes over business issues, politics, and family disagreements are settled through mediation. The essential structure of mediation is conducive to cooperation and out-of-the-box problem solving, and as a result, disputes are settled peacefully and efficiently.

But adults are not the only ones who attend mediation procedures. There are peer mediation programs, aimed at helping students to work out their problems, which are cropping up all over the country. These students are trained at facilitating the mediation process, and can work with their fellow students to "hash-out" their differences without the threat of punishment, and can deal with problems before they escalate to becoming painful confrontations. Student mediators are known as "peer mediators."

While peer mediation programs may be a step in the right direction, there are still a lot of negative influences that are bombarding our youth. Over the previous decades we have been witness to juvenile violence escalate in alarming ways. Students regularly bring weapons to school and minor skirmishes often end in tragedy. Considering the amount of violence that kids are constantly exposed to through television, movies, and video games it is no surprise that the natural choice of dispute resolution amongst them is all-too-often verbal, or even physical, confrontation. Many adults feel that there is almost no way to get through to "kids these days." So who is left to teach the next generation to deal with conflict in a healthy manner?

The peer mediation program is proving itself in schools all over the country. Since peer mediators are fellow students of the mediated parties, they do not offer any threat of punishment, and the mediated students are not forced to make an agreement. Rather, they themselves help to design the solution and they therefore do not feel the need to rebel. The goal of the peer <a href="http://www.shalleradr.com/">mediator </a> is similar to all other types of mediators- to help parties <a href="http://www.shalleradr.com/adr-services/">work out their disputes </a> and compromise on a solution.

In order to work out their differences students either volunteer for peer mediation or can be volunteered by another student or teacher.

The subjects of disputes discussed in peer mediation sessions can be about almost anything. Subjects that are worked out are often disagreements between friends, racial disputes, and boyfriend/girlfriend issues.

The peer-mediated discussion proceeds much like any adult-mediated case. The mediator's job is not to judge but rather to facilitate the cooperation of both parties in order that they should ultimately come to a compromise which suits everyone.

There are a slew of benefits to implementing a peer mediation program. Peer mediation teaches youth to be mediators, which is good for the peer mediator's self-esteem and may even be applied towards a future career.  Also, students are often more at ease and willing to talk with a peer mediator than with an adult. Another plus is that students who come to a peer mediated agreement are likely to stick to the agreement that they themselves designed and agreed upon, as opposed to punishment, or rebuke by authority figures. Further, in a school where peer mediation thrives it raises the consciousness of the entire student body that there is another way to solve conflict rather than violence or hate. It also encourages tolerance, understanding, and working together.. Finally, it makes the school environment a healthier, happier place so that students can focus on making friends and studying rather than revenge and anger.

Considering the many negative influences that bombard our youth on a constant basis we need all the help that we can get to communicate positive ways of dealing with others. The success of peer mediators provides a refreshing picture of today's society against a backdrop of unsightly newspaper headlines. We are witnessing one success story in the tireless effort to instill good values and cooperation in the next generation.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Should You be Forced to Use a Mediator?

Thirty years ago, in the early days of the popularization of mediation as a dispute resolution solution, citizens, like yourself, were just becoming used to the idea of using a <a href="http://shalleradr.com">mediator</a> in place of going directly to court. Over the past few decades more and more people are opting to use mediators instead of trial court.

There are a few different reasons for the popularity of mediation two of the most attractive being cost and time efficiency. But one of the things that people enjoy so much about mediation is the non threatening process. While most citizens are intimidated by the court system, with judges and lawyers and lingo that most laymen would not understand, <a href="http://happyyid.blogspot.com/2011/10/trial-court-takes-chair-advantages-of.html">mediation</a> is much simpler and non-threatening.

There are a few aspects of the mediation procedure that make it non-threatening. One reason for the non-threatening nature of mediation is the fact that it remains as private and confidential as both parties agree upon. Another non-threatening aspect of mediation is the lack of formalities relative to trial court. But the aspect of mediation that is surely the most non-threatening of all is the fact that mediation is voluntary.

Let's discuss what exactly makes the mediation process voluntary. Throughout the mediation process participants work together to find a mutually acceptable compromise. Then, the mediator draws up the agreement and if everyone is happy with it they sign. Therefore, in mediation the final decision is a voluntary agreement, meaning that mediation is voluntary.

But to throw a wrench into what we've just said there is another aspect of mediation that, according to some, does not need to be voluntary. Let's take a look at the decision to be mediated, does that need to be voluntary also?

Today, due to the popularity and success of mediation, even judges have begun sending people to mediators rather than processing them through the regular court system. The result- a mediation process which is not 100% voluntary.

There are those, like Frank Sander, who argue that the mediation process does not need to be entered into voluntarily for the outcome to be voluntary. Sanders differentiates between the decision to enter into mediation being voluntary and the final agreement being voluntary. According to Sanders, as long as the final agreement of a mediated case is agreed upon and signed voluntarily it is okay for a judge to require parties to undergo mediation. Sanders and others are in favor of requiring parties to undergo mediation and he is not alone.

On the other hand, even if one differentiates between volunteering to undergo mediation and volunteering to make an agreement upon concluding mediation, as Sanders does, there remains one major consideration, which may still make the idea of mandatory mediation a contradiction of terms. The problem is that once a judge requires that parties meet with a mediator those parties know that the judge expects them to work cooperatively. Likewise, both parties intuitively understand that if their case is being mediated they are expected to make compromises. As a result of being forced into mediation, the parties may agree to compromises that they do not really think are fair, and would not normally settle for. That doesn't sound so voluntary does it?

Another problem with forced mediation is the lack of control that might be caused to the participants. Instead of going to mediation with a sense of control, because it is voluntary the participant may feel more pressure. So should mediation be allowed to be forced? The jury is still not out.