When a white male student directed a racial slur, calling a female South Asian student a “Paki,” the conflict escalated as both students exchanged heated remarks. The female student responded by making critical comments about the male student’s socioeconomic background, referencing his clothing. In a school setting where identity politics often influence interactions, it was crucial to navigate this situation with sensitivity and awareness; as the mediator entering this space, building trust with each person was critical. Guided by a sense of identity awareness, Teneile, as the mediator, understood that their Black identity could be received differently by each participant. They understood that neutrality wasn’t a given. The racialized student immediately seemed to feel comfortable with a racialized mediator; the white male, already aware of being in a disciplinary position, appeared guarded and apprehensive. In the process of building trust with the male student, the mediator listened to them in a way they didn’t expect. The mediator listened to their experiences of class discrimination but also used this moment to educate them about situating people’s identities accurately and recognizing how they hold privilege to condemn and name people’s oppression, in ways that can’t be reciprocated.
Conversely, Teneile is also at risk of being harmed by the mediation process. The expectation to suspend their identity, to greet discrimination with grace and patience, is its own act of violence. This navigating of the neutrality praxis of dominant restorative justice models against their Blackness is a game of trauma roulette. Marginalized groups—racialized, queer and trans folks, people who are new to a racially or religiously divided country, people who lack the dominant language, and people who have a lower socioeconomic status—are constantly negotiating. As Black and racialized mediators with other intersecting identities, we know that our lived experiences, coupled with our training, are assets in conflict resolution. In another instance, Crystena, a South Asian-identifying female, was co-mediating a conflict with a South Asian male colleague, navigating the complexities of both racial and gender dynamics. The conflict involved a physical altercation between two males–both of South Asian descent. Many identity politics were at play. How would the mediators be received? Would one hold more power than the other because of their identity? Crystena questioned how the two parties in conflict would feel about having a female of color mediating their conflict. As the process unfolded, it became clear that the participants wanted the mediators to draw on what they perceived would be a cultural understanding of the situation—a conflict between two friends that escalated into a physical altercation. Despite the shared cultural connection, creating space for accountability and repair still demanded deep and challenging reflection from everyone involved.
As two racialized mediators who facilitate mediations in K-12 schools, youth and adult diversion programs, and various workplace and community contexts, we know that recognizing and honoring identities is not only necessary but crucial for the process to be truly transformative and anti-racist.
Us, racialized people, know how to handle and respond to conflict in ways that white folk and people with power don’t. In our process, we must consider which negotiation strategy to use—one that will not impact our already marginalized status. That often means choosing a “white” option to satisfy the system, to maintain the status quo to protect ourselves—or others. Vershawn Ashanti Young discusses how many racialized people experience “microinsults” in which the communication can “convey rudeness and demean a person’s racial heritage or identity.” What might appear as minor comments actually perpetuate racial harm. Mediators need to know how to both recognize and address subtle forms of racial harm that are bound to enter conflicts.
Mediation, where a presumably neutral third party facilitates dialogue between two parties, has the potential to be a powerful tool for addressing both personal and structural harms. However, for it to be truly effective in addressing issues of race and racism, we must move beyond the traditional model of neutrality and embrace a more relational, identity-centered approach. Relying on mediator neutrality and party self-determination conceals the ways in which mediation can perpetuate substantive and procedural inequalities. This involves critically acknowledging “dysconscious racism,” which refers to an uncritical acceptance of dominant racial norms that perpetuate systemic inequities. While race is often dismissed as biological differences, we can’t lose sight of the fact that these differences have been used to enforce systemic inequalities.
The field of mediation has long grappled with the principles of neutrality and impartiality, both of which are often regarded as cornerstones of dispute resolution. However, when people and practitioners' identities are deeply impacted and oppressed by historical and structural inequalities, such as race and racism, these approaches can compound harm and trauma.
An 11-year-old Black student was being bullied with racial slurs, including the N-word, in a Snapchat group she was added to by a white student she thought was her best friend. Teneile understood the mixture of betrayal, shame, and hurt the Black student must have been experiencing. These experiences of racial harm are carried through life as trauma. Requests to support incidents of anti-Black racism are deeply personal. They are reminders of and even triggers for Teneile’s own trauma. Equally, they are opportunities to provide support that they wish was made available to them to the harm-doer and the victim.
Mediation is a relational process that seeks to repair harm and build understanding. Yet, the identity of the mediator—their race, gender, and cultural background—plays an essential role in how participants experience the process and how mediators guide the process. In our work mediating conflicts involving racial tensions and discrimination, we have seen firsthand how the mediator’s identity can foster trust or reinforce skepticism among participants. When mediators come from the same communities as those involved in the conflict, an unspoken cultural connection facilitates deeper understanding. This cultural empathy can serve as a bridge, especially in conflicts where race and power are central issues.
The essence of mediation lies less in the specific context and more in the people involved—how we, as mediators, engage with them and create a space where all parties feel seen, heard, and respected. This approach fosters a transformative experience that can be considered and applied across diverse settings, as it centers on building trust and addressing the complexities of identity, power, and privilege. Culturally responsive conflict resolution practices, which emphasize the importance of identity, are vital for mediators working in diverse cultural settings, as they create opportunities to address inequities and foster inclusive relationships. Recognizing this, we approach each mediation with an understanding that neutrality is never a given but is achieved through intentional and reflective engagement with each person’s background and experiences.
When Crystena was mediating workplace conflict between two colleagues, one of whom was a South Asian woman feeling marginalized and unheard within her workplace, she turned to her as a racialized mediator and said, "You know how it is." This simple phrase captured the cultural and emotional weight of her experience. It was an implicit request for us as racialized people to draw on our shared cultural understanding. This exchange emphasizes the importance of acknowledging the role of identity in mediation, particularly when it intersects with experiences of racism.
As in the example above, Teneile is often brought into schools to mediate tense conflict that is often racially or culturally complex, such as students using the N-word and making discriminatory or hate-fueled remarks. In these high-stakes situations, committing to an approach to create a safe space for each person to feel heard and validated creates an environment where sensitive issues can be addressed openly and constructively.
A mediation process can be an anti-racist practice, yet it is not always taken up in this way. The process of mediating disputes seeks to address harm in a way that is relational and participant-centered. Unlike traditional forms of dispute resolution, which often prioritize efficiency and closure, an anti-racist approach to mediation creates space for stories, emotions, and cultural histories to be shared. Sharon Press and Ellen Deason examine the influence of white identity within ADR. They show how racialized power structures can influence mediation outcomes and argue for the necessity of recognizing whiteness (a social construct that is not just skin color but rooted in historical structures of oppression) as a positionality that can inadvertently reinforce systemic inequities unless actively addressed by mediators and institutions alike. Similarly, Isabelle Gunning emphasizes how whiteness in mediation often impacts both neutrality and power. This suggests that mediators may unconsciously (or consciously) perpetuate biases to assert and recenter power dynamics to benefit themselves or particular parties in conflict.
This process is especially powerful in cases where racial harm has occurred, as it allows for a deeper exploration of the systemic forces that contribute to individual conflicts. Honoring identity is a core principle of anti-racist practice, recognizing the unique experiences and perspectives individuals bring to the table. By acknowledging and valuing these identities, we actively challenge the erasure of marginalized voices and work toward dismantling systemic inequalities.
Traditional mediation emphasizes neutrality, expecting mediators to maintain impartiality in both process and outcome. However, this one-size-fits-all approach, focused on objectivity and positions, often neglects the emotional and relational dimensions of conflict, particularly in cases involving racism and power imbalances. Neutrality assumes all parties come to the table on equal footing, which is rarely the case, and expecting people to erase their biases and lived experiences is not only unrealistic but can also perpetuate systemic injustices. A mediator claiming neutrality in a racially charged conflict risks reinforcing the very power dynamics mediation seeks to address. Instead, mediators should acknowledge their positionality and actively work to disrupt these imbalances. By challenging harmful narratives and creating space for marginalized voices, mediators can move beyond the false promise of neutrality toward a more inclusive, transformative practice. This involves being transparent about their identities and how these identities shape their approach, allowing true emotions and perspectives to be acknowledged and holding space for the emotional experiences of those involved.
At the heart of an anti-racist approach to mediation is relational trust-building. Rather than focusing solely on resolving the conflict at hand, such mediation processes emphasize the importance of repairing and strengthening relational connections. In many ways, this approach mirrors the practices found in Indigenous and other non-Western cultures, where community well-being and relationality are prioritized over individual outcomes.
Informal ADR settings can heighten the risk of racial and class-based biases influencing outcomes, as they lack the procedural safeguards of formal adjudication. This underscores the need for actively addressing power imbalances in mediation to prevent further marginalization of disadvantaged parties.
Embracing a relational focus in mediation requires rethinking resolution itself. It is not enough to merely resolve conflicts; we must also work to rebuild the trust and understanding that has been eroded by systemic inequities. This requires mediators to engage deeply with the cultural and social contexts in which they operate, recognizing that every conflict exists within a larger web of historical and structural forces.
The tendency of white folks and even racialized people to default to neutrality in how we approach conflicts is a big part of the problem—it keeps us stuck in the same patterns and prevents us from creating spaces for belonging. It perpetuates identity erasure and fails to address the root causes of the conflict.
Racialized people “know how it is” in the same way that white folks know–we implicitly (and at times explicitly) lean on the ladders of assumptions that we each carry, and that comes to the forefront when addressing conflict. In a 2021 interview with labor organizer Whitney Benns, interviewer Alonzo Emery explored how Benns’s values shape her approach to dispute resolution. Benns challenges the conventional reliance on “experts” in ADR, advocating for the values of lived experiences and community knowledge.
Making these kinds of changes allows racialized people to not have to live in what Frantz Fanon describes as “the zone of non-being” —a state of dehumanization and erasure faced by the oppressed. Mediating across and between these two worlds, between the colonizers’ realm of “wealth and privilege” and the lived reality of the oppressed, can perpetuate violence, alienation and psychological trauma among the oppressed, if mediators are not actively aware of the emotional and cultural labor of each interaction and experience. Benns, therefore, views protest as a critical tool for confronting injustice and envisions ADR as an active force in dismantling systemic exclusion.
Therefore, by integrating anti-racist principles into mediation, we can create processes that are not only more inclusive but also more capable of addressing the root causes of conflict. Such efforts pave the way for mediation practices that don’t just resolve conflict but actively dismantle the barriers to justice.
