ACR Conference Notes

At the opening session of the ACR conference in San Diego the President of the Association announced that ACR was, for the first time in living memory, in the black every month of this year. That was good news, and a remarkable turn around from the dire financial straits that ACR was in just a couple of years ago. Other things about the conference, however, have been a bit disappointing.

My disappointment started with the opening plenary session. The topic was framed around “diversity of practice,” but there was little or no diversity among the panel members – they, for the most part, came from a lawyer/mediator/arbitrator background, which is not in and of itself a problem. But if the object of the plenary was to discuss the problems and opportunities offered by true diversity of practice in the conflict/dispute resolution field, if fell far short. One of my colleagues observed that the conversation on the stage mirrored conversations mediators have been having in small groups for years, and another observed that if a panel with all mediator/ADR types was diverse, then ACR had little to offer her as a peacemaker. This, in my view, is a serious problem with ACR, and it is reflected in the choice of panel members (a group of the usual ADR suspects) and the lack of sensitivity to what are sometimes radically different goals and processes embraced by those who are supposed to be served by ACR. Even the slogan for the conference, “Many Paths, One Goal,” is a problem for me. In addition to the many paths not being present on the stage, we don’t all have the same goal. I hesitate to put words in their mouths, but I think most of the panelists would embrace the idea that the “goal” is to get to resolution or settlement of reasonably discrete issues or problems – that is what they do every day in their practices. I suppose that if you look at it from a high enough level, we may all have a similar goal – perhaps as my partner, Julia, said, we all want to leave things in better shape than we found them. But as you get closer to the ground there are many among us who are interested not in resolution or settlement, but in changed relationships, capacity building, social justice, etc. At any rate, I, and many others who I heard express an opinion, found the opening session disappointing and indicative of deeper problems in the Association.

The other strikingly evident problem with this conference was pointed out by Tony Picchioni, the Chair of the dispute resolution program at SMU – there were damn few people under 30 at the conference. I have always seen ACR as an insular group, and I have said in the past that we should make it easy, not hard, for students to attend and actively participate in the conference. I’m trying to practice what I preach by organizing a student panel at the ODR Forum this year – at the very least, we at ACR could organize a spotlight panel for students and give free access to the conference for those who participate. But youth are not in evidence in any numbers at ACR conferences. This will not serve us well in the long run.

I may sound like I am anti-ACR, but I’m not. I’m just disappointed that the premier professional group for practitioners and academics dealing with conflicts, disputes, and social tension isn’t doing a better job of putting up a tent where everybody feels welcome and served. And I wouldn’t be writing this if I hadn’t heard a number of colleagues at the conference saying much the same thing.