Peacemaking Services

During my fellowship, I offered Peacemaking services to students, staff, faculty, and postdocs across campus. This page includes information on how I advertised and provided those services. While the future of peacemaking services at the university is currently being determined, I hope this documentation aids the next individual providing campus peacemaking services.

For more information and resources on peacemaking trainings, please go to the next tab titled 'Peacemaking Training'.

Early in my fellowship, I worked with other staff in Institutional Equity and Access to create a landing page (equity.stanford.edu/peacemaking) for the university peacemaking services that I provided. This page housed information on my role on campus, peacemaking, and how peacemaking could be used my campus community members. I also shared additional resources or readings about peacemaking on this page.

The links I included in the 'What is Peacemaking?' section include:

• Quick Overview of Peacemaking

• Example Itinerary for a Peacemaking Process

• Peacemaking Toolkit by Niyo Moraza-Keeswood

In the first six months of my fellowship, I dedicated a significant amount of time to meeting with offices on campus that would potentially benefit from learning about my role and peacemaking . These offices included Community Centers; Staff Affinity Groups; the Ombuds Offices; Diversity and Access; Title IX SHARE; the Office of Religious and Spiritual Life; the Faculty Staff Help Center; Employee and Labor Relations–University Human Resources; the Office for Inclusion, Belonging and Intergroup Communication; Counseling and Psychological Services; the Haas Center for Public Service; Well-Being Coaching; BeWell; the Graduate Life Office; Residential Education; the Office of Community Standards; and the Protected Identity Harm Reporting Office, to name a few. During these meetings, I shared information about myself and my role and often presented a shortened version of my Introduction to Peacemaking presentation and provided the following handout, also embedded below. When time allowed, I would also lead a small values or community building circle with the group to demonstrate the framework of peacemaking.

Later in my fellowship, I worked with Brenda Berlin (the University Ombudsperson), Cardinal at Work, and BeWell to include a section about peacemaking into an article on the Ombuds and university conflict resolution services as employees returned to campus in September of 2022. Working with these new outlets or others, such as the Stanford Report or the Daily could also be a good way of advertising services across campus.

Finally, I'd recommend attending resource fairs and other orientation activities for students at the beginning of the academic year. Originally, Karen Biestman and I planned to lead a peacemaking training session during RA Training in September 2021. While complications made this training impossible, I was able to attend the RA resource fair to provide similar information to these student leaders. A copy of the flyer I used can be seen embedded below and linked here. Other New Student Orientation events for undergraduate and graduate students may be appropriate places to share resources and flyers as well as any resource fairs for staff, postdocs, and faculty. I also supported community building circles during pre-orientation activities with students, which may offer a pathway to meeting and building trust with students on campus.

Checklist:

Below is a copy of my peacemaking checklist list. Hopefully, it illustrates the steps needed to have a well-orchestrated peacemaking circle. You can also see a copy of the checklist here.

Peacemaking Plans:

As you can see in the Peacemaking Checklist above, I typically design a peacemaking plan for each circle. I then receive feedback on this plan from the group convenor. Below I have included outlines for different types of peacemaking circles, which may help a future peacemaker model and plan their own circles.

• Community Values Circle

• Difficult Conversations Circle

• Processing Harm Circle

• Allyship Circle

Peacemaking Write-Ups:

Following a circle, you may send important notes or final agreements to the convenor and participants. These notes should not have any personally identifying information on them if at all possible. If they do, you should receive explicit permission from participants before sharing. These notes can help remind participants of the journey they've embarked on together and the progress they've already made in the circle. In some cases, it might help participants remember their responsibilities and commitments to each other after leaving the circle. In some cases, I use Canva to create write-ups that can be posted in common spaces. I've included an example below and at this link.

Following each circle, I collect data on the critical details of each circle while trying to maintain the privacy of the convenor and participants. The following excerpt is from my Fellowship Report, which was submitted to my supervisor and colleagues. This excerpt outlines the data I collected on peacemaking circles during my fellowship as well information I gathered through focus groups with some circle participants in the winter and spring.

Case Data:

Throughout my fellowship, I led over 46 circles on campus for 37 separate concerns. I was consulted on an additional 11 circles or disputes. Overall, I provided support in over 57 critical conversations or disputes with communities on campus. Typically, circles included ten to twenty people; however, I led circles with as many as 40 people and as few as three.

Of the circles I led, 18 of those were related to community building and 28 were on difficult conversations/disputes. Community building conversations typically focused on working with a community of individuals (i.e. a working group, student group, community center, classroom, etc.) to define their values, responsibilities, and expectations for working together. In many cases, these circles possibly acted as conflict prevention, providing the group an opportunity to set community guidelines before any misalignments in expectations could lead to dispute.

Those cases that were focused on disputes and difficult conversations varied in their subject matter, yet all involved some form of high-stakes conversation that would have been difficult to otherwise navigate without a third-party peacemaker. Some were processing spaces where a community took an opportunity to discuss a difficult incident that had happened within the community or even a national or international event that had caused distress. Other circles were used to address disputes that had caused unrest in the group, such as recent policy changes or concerns with group leadership to name a few.

A majority of the circles I supported also had either a direct or indirect focus on topics of identity, such as race/ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status and disability. For some circles, especially with community centers or staff affinity groups, the main issues of concern were directly connected to identity, especially concerns around microaggressions, inadequate allyship, or triggering local/national/international events impacting marginalized populations; yet, other circles often interwove conversations or concerns related to identity without these topics being the central focus. For example, in a dispute/difficult conversations circle in a dorm, the main topic of conversation was intended to be about splitting up house chores and reestablishing a community of respect. However, the conversation quickly expanded to include additional house concerns and expectations, such as calling out microaggressions when they occurred and creating a space of gender inclusivity.

In ten cases, I helped consult on a conflict or circle process, although I did not resolve the conflict myself. In some cases, people chose consultation services because they felt as if they were the best individual to navigate their own conflict or concern. For example, in a case relating to fraternity and sorority life one of the leaders of a Greek life organization led a community wide conversation for their members. While I helped them design and plan for this event, they felt that they were in a strong place to guide the conversation because of their neutrality in the conflict and position of leadership in the organization. Other examples of consultation cases include an RA who had been training in peacemaking and consulted with me to help build out a circle for a few of her residents.

Also included in the category of consultations are cases in which I began preparing to lead a peacemaking circle for a group but ultimately did not end up facilitating. In most cases, these peacemaking circles did not go forward because the individuals involved found a resolution/way forward before the circle began or because of other time constraints. However, in each of these cases, I typically spent a few hours working with the involved parties to imagine how the framework of peacemaking could be applied to their concerns.

Each circle typically lasted between 1-2 hours. In addition, the preparation time for each circle was typically between two to eight hours, although this often varied depending on the complexity of the case. Preparation work included speaking with the individual(s) convening the circle and other relevant parties, meeting with other necessary offices at the university, drafting the circle plan, and finalizing other details, such as inviting parties to the space and setting up the zoom or in-person location.

Circles were referred to me most often by campus partners, including, but not limited to, the Ombuds, the Protected Identity Harm Response Office, the Title IX office, Residential Education, Diversity + Access, Staff Affinity Groups, Fraternity and Sorority Life, Community Centers, Human Resources managers, the Office of Religious and Spiritual Life, School administrators, DEI practitioners, and faculty members. Cases that were not referred by other campus partners often came to me because an individual had either found my services online, were referred by a peer who had previously used these services or reached out after having previously participated in a circle.

Throughout my fellowship, I made a concerted effort to meet with possible collaborators across campus and discuss my peacemaking work. These relationships blossomed over the course of my fellowship and resulted in meaningful collaborations on programing and/or cross-referrals of services. In two cases, I also asked campus partners to co-facilitate a circle with me, specifically because they had a greater understanding of the conflict and trust with the participants or because the subject matter of the circle required additional expertise, such as in cases related to some element of sexual harm.

It is worth noting that towards the end of my fellowship, I had to begin turning down requests for circles because of my responsibilities in leading trainings, supporting the research and reports of the policy lab, and closing out my final report for this fellowship. However, it quickly became evident that in many of these cases there were no additional individuals on campus to whom I could refer these concerns. While the university has a select group of individuals who are confident in their mediation skills, almost no one else on campus is skilled in leading community-wide discussions.

Focus Group Data:

In addition to the data I collected after each peacemaking case, I wanted to receive feedback from those who had utilized circles. In the winter and spring of 2022, I held focus groups to receive feedback from individuals who had acted as convenors of circles. Convenors are individuals who support the planning and development of the circle and are typically the individuals who initially reach out to me for support. While it would have been useful to receive feedback from everyone who had participated in a circle, because I only collected the contact information for convenors and because circles on average included between ten to twenty people, it would have been particularly difficult to speak with all circle participants.

After reaching out to the convenors of these circles, eight individuals sat down to speak with me about their experiences in the circle and future recommendations on peacemaking practices at Stanford. Out of these 8 individuals, three were students and five were staff members. I asked these individuals a set of pre-written questions, which can be found in the appendix to this report. Below is a compilation of their thoughts.

In my substantive first question, I encouraged participants to share what had been useful and what could have been strengthened in their peacemaking circles. While the range of answers regarding what had been useful were wide ranging, they settled into three main themes. The first of these was that peacemaking uplifted the voices of all in the conversation. Many individuals mentioned that either they or others in their group reverted to silence during group conversations. Peacemaking encouraged those voices to equitably contribute to the conversation. Unlike a town hall format, which prioritizes the loudest and most aggrieved voices, circle practices gently coaxed each individual into sharing their thoughts and concerns thereby creating a more holistic picture of the conflict or community need. According to focus group members, peacemaking also provided a space for marginalized voices to be included and uplifted in the conversation. Many individuals in the focus groups commented on the need for BIPOC centered approaches to conflict navigation and healing in order to wholly address the needs of BIPOC folks. Peacemaking’s ability to let all share and speak, provide a safe and facilitated space for conversation, include important historical and cultural context into the conversation, and ultimately guide a space through community values were all highlighted as ways in which BIPOC and other marginalized voices were able to be uplifted.

Another common theme shared in response to this first question was that peacemaking provided holistic support in trying times. While I am not a mental health practitioner, individuals appreciated having a space that included a focus on healing and wellness. For many circles, especially processing circles, wellness activities, including breathing exercises or reflective art sessions, were baked into the framework of the circle. Due to the often upsetting or traumatic experiences that can be linked with conflict, peacemaking’s focus on personal and communal healing offered comfort and growth to those in the circle. In some cases, it also provided a way to create actionable steps to care for community members needing additional support.

Focus group members also mentioned that peacemaking led to long-term impacts in the working culture of a group. For example, almost all focus group participants felt the circles helped generate group empathy and understanding, which some noted was especially important at Stanford where community members come from a range of diverse backgrounds. With community boundaries and expectations set in the circle, they knew the needs of each individual and how to support them. In addition, colleagues had often witnessed acts of care or vulnerability in the circle which translated to closer and more trusting working relationships following the circle. However, maybe the most impactful long-term result was the group’s ability to learn new tools and techniques for supporting their community in the future. In many cases, groups reached out for additional circles or implemented their own thereby building group capacity for challenging conversations.

When asked which components of the peacemaking process could have been strengthened, focus group participants highlighted three major concerns. The first was related to some circles being geared towards discussion rather than next steps or action items. Frequently in the work of peacemaking, we must begin by setting community values or exploring the root of a conflict before we move onto discussing next steps. While focus group participants recognized the importance of pre-work, they also thought it important to prepare circle members’ expectations about timelines and when action items might be achievable. In a society that subscribes to instant satisfaction, dedicating oneself to a journey of restoration can be challenging. While I try to set circle participants’ expectations, these comments from those in the focus groups note the importance of collaboratively working with all circle participants beforehand to plan the process.

A second concern raised by focus group participants was related to the potential for cultural appropriation of Indigenous practices during peacemaking circles. While most participants were comfortable with me, an Indigenous person, facilitating the process, some were unsure how they would feel about utilizing similar tools by themselves. In one case, a focus group participant mentioned that one of their students, who had previously participated in a peacemaking session, wanted to lead a circle for their peers; however, they felt incapable of doing this as a non-Indigenous person. Instead, they made changes to the space to lead a community conversation that they felt was not at risk of being appropriative. In the trainings I’ve led on peacemaking, I’ve helped guide conversations on cultural appreciation versus appropriation in peacemaking, a critical discussion needed for all those interested in any restorative practices. However, rather than shying away from peacemaking, I believe we have an opportunity to educate, center Indigenous ways of being, and build upon a rich practice of community building and conflict navigation, which was also noted by other focus group participants.

Finally, participants in the focus groups mentioned their fears that circles would be less successful if the facilitator was ill-equipped for the role. While this is true for all informal conflict navigation processes, such as mediation, there may be a heightened fear because far fewer individuals are skilled in leading conversations amongst large groups of people, which is typically uncommon in mediation and other practices. Ultimately, this concern can most easily be resolved through the continuation of peacemaking trainings on campus as well as an effort from Stanford to bring in skilled peacemaking facilitators and trainers.

When asked if peacemaking should be a continued resource at the university, all focus group participants answered ‘yes’. Participants imagined circles being used for a variety of issues across campus including in conflicts related to residential life, student groups, lab groups, and community centers; navigating bias in the workplace; building relationships in the workplace and other communities, especially at the start of the academic year; addressing concerns between students and faculty or students and the administration; and healing or processing spaces on a variety of subjects from interpersonal concerns to international events. It was also suggested that peacemaking could be used as a restorative practice to navigate student disciplinary concerns, especially those related to student conduct or alcohol and other drugs. When asked which resources should be capable of providing these peacemaking support in the future, participants mentioned Institutional Equity and Access, Residential Education, the Office of Community Standards, and community centers.

The final piece of advice provided by a grand majority of focus group participants was the need for peacemaking to be a constant service at the university. While participants mentioned their deep appreciation for current circle resources, many were concerned about the potential for peacemaking to disappear after my fellowship concluded. Some individuals who had used circles to directly navigate cases of bias or identity harm were especially concerned about the possibility of having no outlet to manage such conversations in the future.

Appendix: Focus Groups Questions

Note: Below are the pre-written questions which I asked to focus group participants. I largely maintained this question order, although I asked additional clarifying questions when needed or skipped a question if it had already been answered by a participant. Before participating, I informed participants that their responses would be used to provide a more holistic picture of peacemaking practices on campus as I completed my final fellowship projects and that their identities would remain anonymous. Participants were encouraged to share openly and honestly to the extent they were comfortable.

• What type of circles have you been involved with?

  • Difficult conversations/conflict resolution

  • Community building/values

  • Other or training based

• What components of the circle were helpful? What could have been strengthened?

• Did you find the circle session(s) useful? Did they have any lasting impact? Why or why not?

• Would you recommend a circle to a peer/colleague? Why or why not?

• Should the university continue to offer these resources? Why or why not?

  • If so, what topics would you use circles for in the future?

  • If so, where on campus would you like these services to be located and provided?

• Additional Feedback?