Working Paper 93-18, August 5, 1993(1)
By Leo Cardenas
U.S. Department of Justice
Regional Director, Community Relations Service
(1) This paper is an edited transcript of a talk given by Leo Cardenas for the Intractable Conflict/Constructive Confrontation Project on April 10, 1993. Funding for this Project was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the University of Colorado. All ideas presented are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Consortium, the University, or Hewlett Foundation. For more information, contact the Conflict Resolution Consortium, Campus Box 327, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0327. Phone: (303) 492-1635, e-mail: crc@cubldr.colorado.edu.
© Conflict Resolution Consortium. Do not reprint without permission.
I work with the Community Relations Service, a unique agency of the U. S. Department of Justice. The Community Relations Service has been in business for almost three decades. It was born out of the 1964 Civil Rights Act--Title X, specifically. We assist communities in resolving disputes. A part of our design asks that we work with state and local communities to prevent conflicts and violence.
The topic of intractable conflicts is a tough one, as is evident in the words used to describe such conflicts--destructive and constructive. These terms connote many things for all of us depending on such things as where we come from and our current concept of what is happening in the streets of our communities.
At this very moment, our agency has 14 mediators in Los Angeles, and like the rest of the world, they are waiting to hear the jury's verdict in the Rodney King civil rights case. Our Department is the prosecutor this second time around. Let me point out some things about this particular jury. Unlike the first jury, it consists of some people of color. We also know that out of the millions residing in the greater Los Angeles area, people of color bring certain values to that jury. Going back a year, the jury in the first trial held in Simi Valley, a predominantly white community, was composed of almost all white jurists. We do not know what the results of this second trial will be, but we all remember vividly the results of the first Rodney King trial--destructive riots lasting for several days. Fifty-two people were killed, and millions of dollars of property damage occurred.
Now let's discuss Denver, Colorado. Most of us know about the controversy over the Columbus Day Parade last October. Prior to that controversy, in the summer, four members of the American Indian Movement (AIM) went before a six-person jury. They were accused of several charges involving an earlier protest of the Columbus Day celebration--the 500th anniversary of the founding of the Americas. This six-person jury, in this multi-racial city, acquitted all four individuals of all charges.
In this conflict, the Italian community felt that the system did not work for their interests--the same system that minorities in L.A. were saying didn't work for them. After this verdict, representatives of the Italian community--cornerstones of the Denver community--did not come back to the negotiations that our agency and the Human Relations Commission of the City of Denver were conducting about the impending Columbus Day Parade. They made their statement by attempting to hold the long-established parade and then canceling at the last minute. Many feared that this conflict would erupt in violence.
I am focusing on juries, because we have found in our agency that what juries do is something we can all relate to. The results of both of these trials involved more than an individual and generated considerable publicity. These cases demonstrate the potential for destructive reaction to a jury's verdict. From these two examples we can see what happens when individuals hear conflicting opinions and are asked to return a verdict on a very narrow part of the law. Their decision affects the entire community.
Values are at the base of how destructive a particular incident can become. The importance of values is demonstrated by the fact that "value" has become a buzzword due to Vice-President Quayle and his battle with a television character, Murphy Brown. Of course, Amendment 2 and its sponsors in Colorado Springs not only focus on values, but use the word in their organization's name. Everyone brings values into a conflict or dispute. A police officer, based on his or her training, brings certain values into deciding on how to enforce the laws in a particular community.
When there are conflicting values, one remedy that our agency has used is contained in a book called Principles of Good Policing. The book shows how to develop values on law enforcement in a community, created jointly by the law enforcement agencies in that community and a cross-section of civilian members of the community. Most police departments are beginning to develop such plans.
When values come into conflict there usually is what our agency calls a "triggering incident." A triggering incident can involve a law enforcement officer, assigned to uphold the law and to protect all of us, who takes the law beyond a community's values of what that protection should be. We all have seen the Rodney King video and we all have our personal way of interpreting and analyzing what happened. What we generally do not think of is how a simple arrest for a traffic violation can turn into a "triggering incident." It may happen this way. An individual may perceive that they have been mistreated by a police officer during a routine traffic stop and relate this to their family. Family members then become angry and frustrated. The family then relates this incident to the neighbors, to the church, and others. The incident then hits the newspapers and the other media. Then the incident is no longer the individual's, it is no longer the family's, it is ours--the community's.
Recognizing this, Los Angeles, and many other U.S. cities are using contingency planning--simply being prepared for the worst-case scenarios. As a result of the riots in L.A. last year, most cities now have a citizen disorder plan, in which the police enforcement officers take the lead. It is incumbent upon communities--private citizens--to be sure that they know what that plan is about and to become part of it. Decisions have been made in L.A. that set an entirely different tone as to how to react to this verdict. This pre-planning does not occur in many communities because people do not anticipate that violent reaction will ever occur in their community. The city of L.A. has now recognized that and included their vast ethnic community in planning for this verdict. They have put in place multi-ethnic teams that are ready to react at various points in the community. If a verdict similar to the Simi Valley verdict is handed down in Los Angeles, L.A. is prepared to handle it. If all four officers are convicted, then we are looking at an unknown. How will the law enforcement community react to such a verdict?
Generally what happens with a triggering incident is that the community reacts with anger and frustration. This creates gridlock and the conflict is protracted. It is at this point that mediation is needed.
As we can see, trying to resolve disputes goes beyond table negotiations. Mediation involves technical expertise, counseling ability, and a proficiency in training people to participate in processes of mediation or pre-mediation. These abilities revolve around essentials such as learning about a community, understanding who lives in that community, the values that people in the community hold, and examining the commitment residents have to the community.
Two other points form part of the foundation of mediation. A community and any one involved in a dispute, has to take ownership of that dispute, and has to build self-enforcing mechanisms to deal with problems once they are identified. In ADR we often think that what we are working for is a resolution of disputes or conflicts. In my agency we are always looking for a "bottom line." This bottom line usually entails the disadvantaged or those perceived as disadvantaged when entering negotiations--the underdog, if you will. Our conciliators sometimes pat themselves on the back and ask for recognition if the minority community they were representing was able to extract something out of the negotiations. It may be that they were able to get something from a police department or an advisory commission, for example, a grant to build a park in a minority community. But, I believe what is important is not the park, it is not the grant, but it is the relationship that was developed by the facilitator/mediator, having brought those parties together. For example, it is extremely significant that after negotiations a member of a minority community is able to pick up the telephone and talk to the city manager or to the police chief. And even more important is the fact that the police chief or city manager is able to call someone in that community and ask for help with a particular problem. It may not even be a problem in the minority community. That is the type of relationship I am most impressed with and see as the most crucial aspect of negotiating. I think building those relationships is much more important than for us as practitioners to say that we facilitated a resolution. I don't think that we ever resolve a dispute. It is not ours to resolve! The conflict belongs to those who are hurting, to those who are in pain. We can provide the aspirin, but they are the only ones who can determine whether they are still in pain.