Coming to the Table: Resolving Student/Faculty Conflicts Through the Use of Mediation in a Law School Setting

Scott Turow reflected on his first year at Harvard Law School by noting that his life consisted of "a tiny universe centered on the professors, with the 140 of us in a dense and hectic orbit about them." Anyone who has experienced first-hand the pure chaos of law school knows that this snapshot captures effectively the energy and anxiety of the experience of legal education. For many students, the sleepless nights and text-strained eyes have become badges of honor, worn by our predecessors before their emergence into the light of glory. Even the sharp sting of professor criticism blends into the background, just one more color in the blur.

Then again, some stings refuse to fade away. Although many students discount ill encounters with their law school professors as "just part of the package", it is foreseeable that the occasional need for some sort of resolution will arise over the course of a student's law school career. After all, like any working relationship, the connection between law students and their professors is plagued with misunderstandings, miscommunications, and missteps along the way. Yet, without resulting to formal panels and complaints to the Dean, many students find themselves powerless in situations of student/faculty conflict.

This paper will consider the merits of using an inter-school mediation process to resolve disputes between law students and their professors. As mediation becomes more popular in the world of law, it seems only natural that mediation would find a home in the world of legal education. However, the unique environment that legal education creates is not necessarily hospitable to a student/faculty mediation process.

I. Law school is historically a high-conflict environment.

Going through law school is not an experience that many people would characterize as "relaxing". Some schools have even offered stress training as part of the first-year experience of getting a legal education. In general, law schools have made relatively recent advancements to make attending getting a legal education an enjoyable experience. However, law school remains stressful for a myriad of reasons. First, the very nature of trying to succeed in law school creates a great deal of internal conflict, as students struggle to do their best academically and professionally. This internal conflict often leads to external conflict as students compete with their classmates and face criticism from their professors. Additionally, the law school experience is different from any other type of schooling, leaving students without the comforts of familiarity and predictability. This increases the chance that students will encounter a higher than normal degree of conflict.

A. Nature of law school is high stress, emotional, and competitive.

Law students enjoy a challenging curriculum that seeks to change the very way that they think. As students go through law school, they are taught to think analytically about everything, a practice that is helpful for reading cases and applying law to diverse circumstances, but which may alienate the students from people outside of the field of law. Naturally, for many students this change in thinking feels uncomfortable and alien at first. For those students who do not naturally pick up on this new style, classes may become harder, a difficult experience for many students who were previously high-achievers with little effort. Admission to law schools that are highly ranked is dependant on undergraduate grades, grouping classes of students together who enjoyed relatively the same academic position at their prior college or university. Therefore, particularly at top-ranked law schools, it is not a surprise that many students believe academic success is closely tied to personal worth.

Of course, when you gather a class of high-achievers not everyone can be at the top of the class. This realization can be unsettling and, in some cases, damaging to student's emotional well-being. Nine percent of entering law students are measurably depressed, which mirrors the national average, but the rate of depression increases to 30% by the end of first year and moves up to 40% by the time the student is graduating, meaning that students are four times as likely to be depressed when they leave law school.

It may be challenging for students to make the connection between higher levels of competition and their failure to reach high expectations for academic achievement. Instead, students may blame their professors for the stress and disappointment they are experiencing. Natural conflicts between personalities and teaching/learning styles are escalated by the fact that grades are inherently connected to professional achievement and student perception of success and self-worth. As many students seeking high-paying positions immediately following law school are dependent on grades and professor recommendations, the student/faculty relationship is at a particular risk for conflict. This connection between performance and person leaves students vulnerable to abuse at the hands of faculty, regardless of whether or not the abuse is conscious or unconscious, real or imagined.

B. Students must adapt to a new style of education, testing, and grading.

Law professors traditionally employ a teaching method that is unique and separate from most other learning experiences. The Socratic method, used mainly when teaching law or philosophy, is a way of teaching that involves a public conversation between a professor and a student. As the professor makes statements, the student agrees or disagrees and explains his or her position. The professor then reframes the question or situation, in an attempt to make the student contradict himself or herself. Although the purpose of Socratic method is to encourage critical thinking, the experience of defending answers against the criticisms of one's professor is uncomfortable for many students. Unfortunately, this method of teaching naturally creates a competitive relationship between students and professors as they attempt to out-think or out-talk one another and has been widely criticized as unnecessary and detrimental to particular groups.

Law professors must also employ an unusual amount of scrutiny when grading students' performances. Traditionally, the solitary measure of student's performance in law school is an exam given at the end of the semester. Students who are dissatisfied with their performance on the exam may therefore be unable to determine if they truly did not perform well or if the fault lay in the exam itself, the professor's perceptions of the student's exam answer, or simply poor circumstances during the exam-taking process. Criticized as being arbitrary and a poor marker of student achievement, this basis of grading is all the more problematic when one considers that law school grades are traditionally set on a curve. Therefore, although the differences in exam answers may be slight, the discrepancy in grades awarded may be severe, in order to fulfill a necessary quota of "low-achieving" students.

C. The faculty/student relationship in law school is more prone to conflict than other teaching relationships.

Due to the traditionally competitive nature of the Socratic methods, solitary exams, and grading curves, there is an increase in the possibility of conflicts between law students and their professors, in comparison to conflicts between students and professors in other fields. In addition, research has shown that the legal field in general may be more taxing emotionally than other fields. Of all occupational groups in America, lawyers are generally the most depressed. Additionally, the law school environment in general has been criticized as being supportive of student detachment from personal relationships and other factors which might interfere with academic performance. The fact that stress and depression may be intrinsically part of the legal experience for most lawyers and law students, coupled with a loss of social support due to alienation from friends and family, hinders the ability of students and faculty to have cooperative, conflict-free relations even before they step into the classroom.

II. The consequences of student-faculty conflict can be very destructive.

Engaging in conflict takes a toll on mental and physical health. Conflict affects sleep patterns, dietary needs, muscle tension, and the brain's ability to process information. It is also important to remember that the consequences of the student/faculty conflict are not limited to the effects on the well-being of the parties involved. High amounts of student/faculty conflict will make the school climate unhealthy and could affect the perceptions and performances of staff and students. Additionally, the school itself may suffer damage to morale and reputation.

A. Consequences for Students

It is a safe assumption that the majority of student/faculty conflicts originate out of a problem the student is experiencing with the professor, rather than the other way around. It is impossible to know how many law students actually experience serious problems with their professors, mainly because many of these problems likely go unreported. The consequences of conflict with a professor may manifest itself in different ways, including stress, paranoia, confrontation, and extreme avoidance, as in the situation in which a student leaves the class or school altogether as a result of conflict.

In order to avoid confrontation, the student may simply act as if the problem doesn't exist and continue interacting with the professor. However, if the problem is severe enough, the student may instead choose to avoid the professor completely, either by leaving the class or by avoiding enrollment in future classes with the professor. Avoidance is a common response to conflict, particularly in certain groups of people. One study found that high-achieving high school students used avoidance as a means of resolving conflict almost exclusively. Researchers found that high-achieving students disengaged themselves from the conflict and chose not to take an active stance, using this approach to navigate through high school and carrying this approach into their undergraduate experience. As many law students were likely high-achieving high school students at one point, it may be reasonable to expect that they have a higher tendency to handle conflict by avoiding it.

In extreme cases, the student may choose to simply drop out of the law school or transfer to another institution. No research has been done on how many students drop out because of particular faculty members, partially because honest disclosure may be unlikely and partially because there are usually a number of factors at work when a student voluntarily decides to leave law school. However, the national average attrition rate for law schools is 13%: 4 % for academic reasons and 9% for other reasons. It is not unlikely that part of that 9% is due in some way to student/faculty conflict.

If a student chooses to remain in class, they may feel targeted and singled-out by the professor, particularly if the conflict involved a confrontation. In these cases, there is a heightened chance that future interactions will turn into new sources of conflict, as the student will feel vulnerable and will experience a heightened awareness of possible insult. It may also be difficult to determine if the student is actually being targeted, as a matter of perspective. In addition to stress and depression, law students are at a higher risk for measurable paranoia and therefore a student may fully believe that he or she is being treated disrespectfully by a professor although the ill-treatment is purely imagined.

As noted earlier, many students may experience problems with faculty, yet choose not to report them or seek some form of resolution. Although some of these problems may simply go away, the potential for emotional harm in these situations is palpable. As discussed, law students are generally operating under a continuous mantle of high-stress. Adding the excess burden of unresolved conflict could, in some cases, be the straw that breaks the camels back. The student may also suffer emotionally if they continue to feel that the professor has a negative perception of the student's chance of attaining academic or professional success. Research has indicated that most students experience a shift from self-determination to behavior motivated by a need to impress other people and failure to please others is likely to become a factor which increases stress and unhappiness.

B. Consequences for Faculty and School

There are instances in which conflict originates from a problem a faculty member or group of faculty members has with a particular student. Complaints commonly made about law students by their professors include lack of preparation, lack of attendance, lack of interest, or open hostility when asked to participate. Any of these factors, particularly when consistently displayed by a student over an extended period of time, could become the basis for serious conflict and a source of stress. In this case, the faculty member may suffer the same types of consequences experienced by the student in the examples mentioned earlier, as the faculty member is subject to the same high risk factors that are associated generally with working in the legal field. The faculty member may also struggle with personal biases during interactions with that student. Regardless of whether the conflict originates with the student or a member of the faculty, unreported and reported problems that go unresolved are likely to create headaches for the faculty and the school at large.

In extreme cases, as noted earlier, the student may choose to leave the school. Although some level of student attrition is normal, law schools are naturally dependent to a large extent on student attendance and tuition payments for their survival as professional schools. It follows that an increased level of student attrition may lead to a significant decrease in student attendance, harming the law school's ability to retain students, faculty, and staff and lowering the professional reputation of the institution. Law schools and law school professors depend heavily on reputation, mainly because entering students rely partially on reputation when choosing a law school. Those decisions are affected by the student's academic ability, the student's geographic preferences, reports from alumni or other people familiar with the institution, and rankings by commercial organizations.

Damage to the reputation of faculty members may also occur if student/faculty conflicts are not resolved. Although complaints between friends are not uncommon among law students, the emergence of the internet has made student complaints accessible publicly to anyone who may take an interest, through sites such as CampusDirt.com and RateMyProfessors.com. These sites profile professors and allow students to post public evaluations on everything from ease of exams to how "hot" the professor is. Although student evaluations are commonly used to rate teacher performance and effectiveness, the ease and anonymity of these sites make it easier for disgruntled students to leave heated comments that could stain a professor's reputation for years.

Like students, faculty members experiencing unresolved conflicts are likely to also experiencing negative effects on their mental, and possibly physical, health. Depending on the class level the faculty member is teaching, these negative effects may be amplified as student unhappiness increases as they advance in class level. In comparison to first year students, students in their third year have experienced a decrease in positive perceptions towards the law school, particularly in regards to faculty treatment of students and faculty support of student success.

C. Consequences due to litigation or threat of litigation.

In some cases, the conflict may be so severe that one or both parties choose to take the problem to court. Ironically, this seems almost predictable when considering that the field in question is that of law. However, litigation is not to be taken lightly as a form of conflict resolution. Even those well-versed in the process of litigation are likely to experience increased stress, financial costs, a decreased chance of resolving the problem amicably, and other negative aspects of taking a conflict to court. Although critics of alternative dispute resolution processes would argue that particular cases need to be litigated publicly, it is difficult to determine which cases are likely or "serious enough" to go to court.

In the past, law students have taken faculty and schools to court for a myriad of reasons. Many of these cases involved a student who was dissatisfied with his or her grade and did not believe the school allowed him or her to address the problem in a satisfactory manner. Other cases involve allegations of torts committed by a faculty member against a student. Some students are simply dissatisfied with school policies and file claims against the law school as a whole, instead of focusing on a particular professor. Many of these claims were probably not foreseeable by the faculty member of school, and it is unclear if any of these suits might have been settled through an alternative dispute resolution process if it had been offered as an option. However, these suits speak to the very real possibility of litigation brought by students against faculty and schools.

For law schools and their faculty, the costs of litigation cannot only be measured in increments of time and money. Public perception and reputation may also be damaged and repercussions of involvement in litigation may be quite harmful when one considers that the field of legal education is quite dependent on rankings, reputation, and retention of accomplished professors. Outside of litigation, other actions that may cause damage to reputation of the law school and its faculty include public complaints via the internet and the involvement of the media.

III. Avoiding high-profile dispute resolution is beneficial.

The costs of student/faculty conflict in a law school setting may be severe for all parties if not handled appropriately. As it is unlikely that student/faculty conflict can be avoided altogether, it would appear that schools have a great interest in designing a system of dispute resolution which avoids student/faculty conflicts continuing unresolved or escalating to extreme methods of resolution, such as litigation. Research has indicated that constructive interaction, such as that found in mediation, is an important factor in maintaining healthy student/faculty relationships. This section will consider the merits of using an inter-school mediation program to resolve student/faculty disputes.
A. Some law schools already include mediation as a part of their curriculum.

As alternative dispute resolution practices have become more common in American law, law schools across the country have responded by offering courses in mediation, negotiation, arbitration, and related topics. For schools that offer these courses, an inter-school mediation program may promote awareness of the process and encourage students to either utilize the system when faced with conflict or enroll in courses to become more familiar with the process. Faculty who are not as familiar with mediation would find educational benefit in having the opportunity to use the process.

Schools without established mediation courses may have a hard time getting the program started, as faculty members at these institutions are less likely to be familiar with the process in general. However, if a mediation program for resolving disputes inside the law school was successfully implemented, it would supplement the general legal education of those students, partially compensating for the lack of formal alternative dispute resolution courses and potentially generating interest in the field, leading to alternative dispute resolution courses being offered
It is not uncommon for schools without formal mediation courses to offer mediation programs for resolution of student/faculty disputes. Many universities and college campuses have similar programs. Additionally, some universities have employed mediation-like systems to hear faculty grievances, absent of concerns with students. Ombudsman programs have also been common in recent decades, although research is mixed regarding the effectiveness of these programs.

Many law schools are included in these larger universities and therefore may have access to these dispute resolution systems. However, the unique nature of the law school environment calls for mediators who are familiar with the grading systems, academic pressures, and professional expectations of learning and teaching law. Therefore, the dispute resolution processes of the general institution may not be appropriate for the sensitive and complex conflicts that are likely to arise between professors and students.

B. Confidentiality, speed, and convenience will make the process of mediation attractive to students, faculty, and the school at large.

For students and faculty dealing with these sensitive, complex issues, the selling points of mediation include its speed, convenience, and general stipulation of confidentiality. Resolving conflicts quickly will be particularly advantageous if the student-faculty relationship is a continuing relationship. The convenience of having an inter-school process will make it more likely that the student will address the issue using mediation, rather than using extreme measures such as litigation, withdrawal, or going to the papers. As the field of legal education is so dependant on reputation, as discussed earlier, confidentiality avoids damage to the reputations of the parties concerned.

IV. Construction of an intra-law school mediation process.

Before addressing the potential drawbacks of implementing an inter-school mediation process, it is necessary to determine how the program could actually be designed, implemented, and operated in order to meet the particular needs of a law school. Factors to be considered include available resources, such as money and staff, and the selection of appropriate mediators for student/faculty conflicts. As not all conflicts are appropriate for mediation, this section will also include a discussion on the necessary screening process for conflicts prior to any actual mediation with a third party. Finally, standards for evaluating the effectiveness of the program will be considered in order to outline the goals and measurements of progress following implementation of the resolution process.

A. Selecting mediators

Selecting appropriate mediators is crucial to the success of any mediation program, as trust and confidence in the mediator by the parties is crucial to the process. Although ideally each conflict would be handled by a perfectly neutral third party with particular expertise in the subject at hand, that standard is an impossible one for most programs due to limited availability of trained mediators and the diverse circumstances out of which conflict arises. In a law school setting, mediators for student/faculty conflicts may come from a variety of backgrounds, including staff, members of the faculty, administration, members of the student body, and outside sources.

In many law schools, resolution of student/faculty conflicts falls to members of the law school administration. The administration of a law school is in a prime position to resolve conflicts as the administration represents the highest levels of power inside the law school. However, using members of the administration as mediators for student/faculty conflicts will gain no advantage from this position of power and may in fact hinder the mediation process. It is likely that faculty and perhaps students themselves will be uncomfortable being candid in the presence of a member of the administration and may feel pressured to either settle or prove themselves to be "right". Additionally, it not likely many administrative members have the time outside of their regular duties to conduct mediation sessions on a regular basis.

In the same way that candidness may be hampered by the presence of an administrator, faculty members serving as mediators may be inappropriate for most student/faculty conflicts. Students currently enrolled or anticipating enrollment in the mediator's courses in the future may be unwilling to fully disclose their issues or could feel pressured to settle in order to make a good impression. Faculty members may feel embarrassed or threatened if forced to discuss conflicts with students in front of colleagues. In addition, as discussed above, both parties may feel that they must "win" in order to save face in front of a professor. There is also a question of bias on the part of the professor, due to any prior or current relationship or interaction with either party.

Bias may also come into play if law students are used as mediators. As noted earlier, many law schools have mediation courses or clinics. Therefore, some law schools may enjoy the presence of trained mediators in their student body and practice in the inter-school mediation program would further a student's education and experience in the field. However, student/faculty conflicts are likely to be inappropriate matter for law students due to questions of bias toward one party or concerns about confidentiality.

As confidentiality is an important benefit of mediation, the possibility of confidentiality being breached is an important one to consider when screening any potential mediator, student or otherwise.. As law schools have honor code requirements, it may be reasonable to expect that considering breach of confidentiality to be an honor could violation would solve the potential of a student compromising the process. However, the expectation that all law students will follow the honor code may not be enough reassurance for professors who are hesitant about disclosing information inside of the mediation.

Even if there was a way to ensure that confidentiality and bias would not be a problem in the use of student mediators, there is still the possibility that the process would be hampered by unwillingness on the part of either party to fully disclose information to the mediator. Students may be embarrassed to discuss the conflict, particularly if the conflict is centered on a low grade earned, due to the competitive nature of the law school culture. Faculty members may have reservations confiding in a student, particularly if the student is currently enrolled or may enroll in a course with that faculty member. The process may also lose credibility if student mediators are used, regardless of the criteria necessary to become a mediator, simply because the parties would know that the mediator is still a student.

Some of the problems discussed above may be avoided if law school staff members were used as mediators. Although the potential for bias, problems with confidentiality, and questions of program credibility may still arise, they would be to a lesser degree as members of staff are generally more removed from student/faculty conflict than any other members of the school population, while still enjoying a familiarity with law school traditions, culture, and climate. However, unless a member or members of the staff were designated as full-time mediators of student/faculty conflict, utilizing staff as mediators would require a sacrifice of time from other projects. This would not only strain available resources, but could lead to a selection process based less on desirable mediator qualities and more on the available time of existing staff members.

Compounding issues of mediator availability is the fact that mediators of different backgrounds are necessary to any successful program. Parties may carry personal biases and preferences about what sex, age, race, or any other factor a good mediator should be. It would be impossible to fully satisfy the preferences of every party entering mediation, the availability a diverse selection of mediators assists in the event that a mediation simply cannot continue with the current mediator/party combination.

One solution to the limited availability of diverse mediators is to use professional mediators from an outside source, either through community volunteers, paid mediators, or a service that provides mediation. Mediators from outside of the law school are attractive because they are unlikely to have the potential for bias and problems with confidentiality seen when using members of the law school community as mediators. Although the pool of available outside mediators may be slightly limited by the requirement that mediators be familiar with law school culture and practices, many attorneys serve as mediators and would therefore have the necessary familiarity.

The drawbacks to using mediators from an outside source lay mainly in cost. If the program is commonly utilized, paying outside mediators could become costly. However, if the program is infrequently utilized, the costs could be limited. There is the also the possibility of developing a volunteer roster of outside mediators, provided that the demands of the program were not extensive. However, the availability of volunteer mediators would vary from school to school.

B. Conducting Intake Sessions

Not all conflicts are suited for mediation. Some conflicts may be inappropriate, either due to the sensitive and serious nature of the conflict or the unlikely resolution of the conflict through mediation. It is probably unlikely that a student/faculty conflict in a law school would involve the possibility of violence, a factor that commonly renders cases unsuitable for mediation. However, factors such as unwillingness from one party to participate or an inability of one party to represent themselves inside of the mediation can be just as destructive to the process. Therefore a division between appropriate and inappropriate conflicts must be established and a screening process is necessary before any mediations occur.

Some conflicts, although suited for mediation in theory, may be inappropriate due to school policy. Any dispute which involved a potential violation of school policy would need to follow the proper procedures set out for policy violations. In the same way, if a school has a policy on how student/faculty disputes must be handled, it will be necessary to change the policy as starting a program which runs counter to school policy makes no sense.
It is important to remember that mediation is not an appropriate substitute for therapy or counseling. Although research indicates that enrollment in law school contributes substantially to a high rate of stress, anxiety, depression, paranoia, and other social or psychological disorders, theories have developed which suggest that people who seek out a legal education may already be high risk members of the general population and therefore the data showing high rates of these disorders in law school is unreliable.

To ensure that only appropriate conflicts are mediated, a screening process must be established. For reasons of confidentiality, possible mediation cases should be screened by designated staff members, rather than random students, faculty, or members of administration. Although the screening process falls outside of the actual mediation, confidentiality is necessary to avoid damage to reputation and to encourage parties to use the process.

C. Evaluating the process

Evaluation of the mediation program is as important as the design and implementation. The effects of the mediation program are measured to determine whether specific desired outcomes have been met. If they have not, the program may be altered to ensure efficiency. Long before the evaluation stage, however, the goals of the program must be determined in order to develop a standard for success.

Depending on the law school, the desired outcomes following implementation of a mediation program to resolve student/faculty conflicts will vary. Many schools may simply wish to evaluate student and faculty response to the new program. A simple of students and faculty involved in mediation may determine whether or not the parties found the process rewarding, but many factors may affect the survey results, such as the type of conflict and the particular mediator involved. Some schools may wish to see an increase in positive perceptions toward mediation in general, or increased confidence in the school's ability to listen to students and effect change. Other schools may wish to see more dramatic results, such as retention of students and faculty or financial savings due to avoidance of litigation, settlement, and other alternatives to mediation.

The question of determining which specific outcomes should be measured to determine program success rests heavily on the needs of each law school, which raises a larger question: do law schools in general experience student/faculty to such a degree as to warrant the development of an inter-school mediation program? The next section will examine whether or not an student/faculty mediation program fills a need, as well as possible barriers to the success of a this type of program in law school culture.

V. Possible barriers to the program

A. The question of need.

A clear need for a student/faculty conflict mediation program has not been shown, although it is difficult to determine how often unresolved student/faculty conflicts create a problem. Earlier in the paper, student/faculty conflict was shown to be potentially harmful in many ways to the parties involved. However, in law school many student/faculty conflicts likely go unreported, and those that are reported rarely lead to litigation, media attention, or violence. Without statistics on each conflict that arises it is difficult to gauge how disruptive these conflicts are to student or faculty life, especially when being considered against all other stressors inherent to the law school culture and experience.

There is the chance that the development of a mediation program would lead to a wave of mediation requests, allowing for healthy resolution of conflicts which have been bottled up in traditional law school environments. However, no research has suggested that law students would talk out their problems with their professors if given the chance. Even if this scenario were to come true, this may lead to a myriad of other problems, including strain on the mediation program and the faculty itself. Law schools traditionally have a high student-teacher ratio. Assuming that the majority of complaints were filed by students, faculty may find themselves constantly pulled into mediation, defending their actions to each student personally.

If all complaints are valid and need to be heard, this may be a necessary burden to place on members of the faculty, but the potential for frivolous or heat-of-the-moment mediation requests leading to unnecessary mediations is very real and therefore the question of whether faculty, and students, should sacrifice the time arises. Additionally, if every student that had a relationship with a particular faculty member was bringing a valid complaint, it is likely that the school would want to take a more direct approach to avoid future conflicts between students and that member of the faculty.

The above scenario is extreme in that it is unlikely that a mass of students would rush to request mediation. However, without this rush, and without answering the question of whether the program is needed at all, a law school student/faculty mediation program still faces potential problems, including motivating parties to use the program, negative perceptions of the program and the process, and possible failure due to lack of support.

B. Hesitation by parties to initiate the process

As conflicts arise over the course of a semester, students and faculty may continually experience problems as they work together. However, parties may not want to "rock the boat," especially if the conflict is mid-semester. For students, the threat of receiving a lowered grade is likely to outweigh the necessity for resolution, unless the problem is severe and students may be too intimidated by the professor to risk the repercussions of filing a complaint. Additionally, some students may be more uncomfortable working through the problem in a setting that forces them to be familiar with the professor than they are leaving the conflict unresolved.

Additionally, many students and faculty may assume that negative student-faculty interaction is just a part of the law school experience as a whole. In life, conflict is inevitable in working relationships, particularly if the relationship takes place in a high stress environment. As discussed, law schools traditionally have a culture of intense stress and pressure, and this culture may serve as an excuse for leaving conflicts unresolved.

C. Negative perceptions of mediation as a process

For situations in which one or both parties do seek resolution to the conflict, mediation may still be negatively perceived as an option, for many different reasons. Law school is an obvious hub for highly litigious people who prefer court and court-like processes. Unfamiliarity with the process may simply discourage parties from become involved with it, particularly if parties enjoy the thrill of really "winning". Students may also have concerns regarding an imbalance of power and may enjoy the opportunity to have a third party with greater power make a binding decision, as in the case of an administrative hearing or dean's conference.

There is also the potential for a negative perception of mediation specifically. Prior negative experiences with mediation or a general lack of confidence in the system may lead parties to discount the process's effectiveness and credibility and faculty members in particular may share these perceptions with students before potential need for this type of resolution even arises. Non-tenured faculty may be especially suspicious of the process because they may have a hard time trusting in the confidentiality of the process and may be concerned that general knowledge that they were involved in a mediation session could impact their reputation.

Additionally, parties who were initially supportive of the process and engaged in it willingly could have a negative experience and then share a negative perception of the program itself, spreading that perception through the law school community. Reports from a handful of unhappy parties may be all the student population needs to abandon the program and seek other forms of resolution. The program may also fail if abandoned by administration, regardless of whether the abandonment is deliberate. Success of any mediation program requires time, financing, and interest in the program. Without active administrative support, the program cannot survive.

Conclusion

It is not a secret that law schools are hotbeds for stress. Faculty have been called upon to relieve some of that stress through an increase in student/faculty counseling sessions, a more relaxed atmosphere inside the classroom, and assistance in job placement following graduation. However, law schools are generally equipped only to deal with the academic and professional aspect of student problems, through assisted study programs or career placement assistance. Unfortunately, the social and emotional hurdles of law school appear to fall outside of the realm of the institution's control. Although there is ample evidence to suggest that a great need for positive, constructive student/faculty communication exists in law schools, it is unlikely that mediation would be an effective way to manage student/faculty disputes.