Navigating Conflict: Overcoming Tough Conversations with
Open Questions
Applying to Carolina Judicial Council felt like setting sail in the unknown, with a storm on the horizon. The idea of navigating murky waters of conflict and tension was intimidating and scary. Carolina Judicial Council (CJC) comprises students, faculty, and staff, deciding conduct and academic integrity cases for the Office of Student Conduct with confidentiality, upholding the USC honor code and creed. On paper, it might not sound scary or difficult, but sitting on a hearing for a peer who broke the honor code during this young adult age is hard, and navigating tough conversations is a skill I never learned in a classroom. Encouraged by friends who believed it could help clarify or confirm my goal of law school, I doubtfully applied. But honestly, with my nervousness, I reassured myself if it became too intense, I could always choose to step back.
Throughout my time on Carolina Judicial Council, I learned to navigate conflict and tough conversations by using open-ended questions to foster a transparent atmosphere. When I first sat on a hearing for CJC I did not know what to expect. We had new member training before my first hearing and walked through what could happen, and the order of the proceedings. Then once training wrapped up, we could sit as an observer on hearings, but could not talk during the hearing. This allowed me to watch the process without having the pressure of answering questions or finding responsibility. This is where I first saw how a hearing chair had to navigate tough conversations. I was shocked at how passionate the students became and how the questioning for everyone on the panel was very deliberate. This is intense, even if the hearings are online, just with how stressful and nerve-wracking it can be. Someone who is appealing their conduct result with the Office of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity shows they are passionate about either the result or the sanctions/consequences. They want to be perceived by the panel, composed of their peers, not as individuals who failed to uphold the honor code or policies, but rather as fellow students in the Carolina community. They are passionate and that means that the hearing is often filled with emotion. Sitting as an observer and watching how intense the hearing became, I doubted if I could ever serve on one, ask the relevant questions, or read out a rationale to the student.
In the Fall of this year, I took EDLP 520: The Teacher as Manager alongside my role as a Peer Leader. This course helps us identify strategies to help with challenges we may face in a University 101 classroom. Learning how to be the best mentor for my students, Professor Emma taught Thomas Gordon’s Model of the 12 Roadblocks to Communication (Class lecture handout see below). Some barriers include ordering, criticizing, labeling, and questioning. While learning about - this I recognized I became accustomed to using these phrases, and worsening the situation, even when that is not your goal in a conversation. I recognized it is easy for me to use probing questions, which can ignore the feelings of the person I am talking to and limit what the person can answer, such as closed-ended questions. Examples include “And then what did you say?... Have you completed what I asked for?... Did you talk to them about this?” These questions do not give the person the freedom to explain the situation and convey that I am only looking to get an answer and nothing more. This does not further a conversation and can strain a relationship. I identified that I was using many of these roadblocks, which were making conflict management, tough conversations, and intense situations more challenging. Instead of offering empathy to the person I was talking to, and asking questions to help them explain the circumstances, I was asking questions that seemed to interrogate.
I also was able to pinpoint characteristics I could see and wanted to have, of hearing chairs I observed. They asked open-ended questions, asked the students about themselves and what brought them to USC, created an authentic space, and allowed them to explain the entire situation. With this in mind, I worked to take more time with my questions, whether in a mentor or leadership setting, but also with friends. I could better navigate challenging conversations as I create an environment where everyone feels as though their voice is heard, and no one is accusing them. In such a tense setting, it is important that people feel that their voices are heard, fostering a sense of inclusion, and promoting empathetic hearings.
This past semester I served as a hearing chair for CJC panels. I lead the hearing, read an intense script (recused CJC hearing script), uphold the strictest of confidentiality, find the student responsible or not responsible based on the facts and questions, and write a rationale alongside other CJC members on the panel (rationale example).
Whether it is an academic integrity hearing or a conduct hearing, there must be questions asked to fully understand the circumstance and situation. I encountered various disagreements among participants, whether they disagreed with the university's presented facts, how the university was asking them questions, how the panel was asking questions or the findings we concluded.
This was all able to happen by learning techniques to de-escalate tense situations, facilitating open dialogue and tough conversations, and implementing strategies to find common ground. These decisions from the Carolina Judicial Council are the final and highest level of case resolution, meaning these students are doing everything they can to explain their situation and circumstances. Our council and hearings are student-centered and educational at the core. We are not finding students “guilty” we may find them responsible for said actions and give appropriate sanctions that are educational and hopefully point them to the Carolinian creed
I learned to use questions as a tool to know the student more and create an open space, rather than limit the student and make them feel consolidated and trapped. This proactive conflict management happens as rather than waiting for the student to feel frustrated and have disagreements, open-ended questions produce a safe space where the student feels heard and seen and lessens the opportunity for tough and challenging questions.
Application is no longer available.
Application is no longer available.
This was all able to happen by learning techniques to de-escalate tense situations, facilitating open dialogue and tough conversations, and implementing strategies to find common ground. These decisions from the Carolina Judicial Council are the final and highest level of case resolution, meaning these students are doing everything they can to explain their situation and circumstances. Our council and hearings are student-centered and educational at the core. We are not finding students “guilty” we may find them responsible for said actions and give appropriate sanctions that are educational and hopefully point them to the Carolinian creed. Whether it is an academic integrity hearing or a conduct hearing, there must be questions asked to fully understand the circumstance and situation. I encountered various disagreements among participants, whether they disagreed with the university's presented facts, how the university was asking them questions, how the panel was asking questions or the findings we concluded. I learned to use questions as a tool to know the student more and create an open space, rather than limit the student and make them feel consolidated and trapped. This proactive conflict management happens as rather than waiting for the student to feel frustrated and have disagreements, open-ended questions produce a safe space where the student feels heard and seen and lessens the opportunity for tough and challenging questions.
Obviously, some conflict and tension are inevitable and there were always disagreements and challenging moments to be had during these hearings. Understanding these skills, but also the tool of questioning helped to de-escalate the situation and gave me the confidence to call for a 5-minute recess or ask the other CJC members on the panel to ask questions relevant to the case at hand. Both worked to de-escalate tense situations and allowed me to best serve as hearing chair to find a conclusion and write a rationale for the conclusion of the case.
Through my time sitting on CJC hearings, I learned to ask questions that are open-ended frequently, and sometimes to use leading questions regarding the specifics of a situation. We are to avoid questions that sound accusatory and focus on the 'hows' not the 'whys' (CJC meeting slides/ question practice see below). This helped me improve my skills in managing disagreements. Conflict management is very apparent in CJC hearings, especially as hearing chair. The chair starts off the questions, makes sure the environment is not intense, leads the conversation when the panel is concluding, and writes the rationale to share the hearings' findings. I recognized students were much calmer and the hearing was less intense when open-ended questions were being used such as, “Can you walk us through the situations; or in your own words what are the main facts you want us to consider.” This encouraged the students to provide thoughtful responses and showed the panel, and myself wanting to uncover their perspectives, rather than not giving them the chance. Facilitating the questions for the students helped me identify what was best for managing disagreements, and de-escalating situations. Through this, I learned I must actively engage in questioning strategies that do not probe or limit someone from their response but rather open the conversation for better explanations to handle tough conversations. These open-ended questions facilitated open dialogue. This strategy helped me to find common ground and find conflict management not as daunting and uncomfortable, but rather someone’s opportunity to share their side. I became more adept at steering conversations toward resolution, fostering a more positive and constructive atmosphere in the challenging context of CJC hearings.
Although conflict management and tough conversations can have a negative connotation this taught me that in the future I want to work alongside a team as I am very team-oriented, and I have found through these tough conversations you create a culture that embraces diverse perspectives and communication to reach a goal. The emphasis on team building and facilitating open dialogue made me a better hearing chair and the ability to be a better friend. Learning how to ask questions about a situation to make a person feel seen and heard rather than accused has allowed me to better listen to friends and family. Navigating challenging conversations has become an opportunity for me to foster understanding, build connections, and offer meaningful support. To be able to give better support and care to the people who have supported and pushed me to fulfill these leadership roles, my village, as I like to say, has been the most impactful takeaway through my time here at USC.
Looking ahead to my future in law school and as an attorney, I recognize that the qualities of transparency and compassion, which I learned during my time as a hearing chair will be helpful in my profession. In legal practice, clear communication and openness are vital, and the ability to navigate tough conversations with compassion is a skill that can transform conflicts into opportunities for understanding. The transparency I learned to uphold in CJC hearings, ensuring a clear and honest exchange of information will strengthen my legal advocacy.
