Ombuds and Upwards

Harvard is no place for the meek. Strong opinions and strong wills clash in newspaper columns, journal articles, public debates and private arguments. Last Monday’s appointment of Clowes Research Professor Henry Ehrenreich as University ombudsman is an effort to replace some of this acrimony with compromise. The newly created office will be a resource for conflicts between faculty, students, employees and the administration. Ehrenreich will provide informal mediation and advice to parties in a disagreement, but will lack the authority to impose mediated solutions. While the exact parameters of this potentially vast role remain undefined, there is a danger that direct communication between students, employees and the administration may be hindered by the filter of the ombudsman’s office.

Other universities have found positions like this extremely useful in mediating disputes among members of the university community. Helping to find mutually acceptable solutions to divisive conflicts without resorting to costly legal action or coercive protest is a valuable service to the University community. Equally valuable, however, is direct communication among disputing parties. The ombudsman’s office must not become an obstacle to such communication by requiring conflicting groups to seek mediation. Encouraging free and fair debate is a key component of the University’s mission—and direct, vocal argument is an integral form of debate. Ehrenreich’s office must be a resource, not a filter—providing advice for those who ask, without compelling any disputing party to halt direct communication and seek mediation instead.

Impartiality is the hallmark of an effective arbitrator. Opposing groups will be suspicious of any mediator they believe to have biases or conflicts of interest, and less willing to accept his proposals as fair. By unilaterally appointing a professor as ombudsman, the administration risks undermining the impartiality and thus legitimacy of the arbitrator’s position. To avoid conflicts of interest, the ombudsman should be an outsider who has no personal stake in the University. Ehrenreich’s position as a tenured faculty member could make students and employees wary of his ties to the already powerful University administration—making them less likely to come to him with disputes or to accept his proposed solutions as fair and impartial. The ombudsman would have greater legitimacy based on the recommendation of a committee representing all voices in the University community—faculty, administration, employees and students.

Beyond mediating individual disputes, the ombudsman must watch closely for common themes underlying specific conflicts. Identifying and reporting these themes—and the larger problems they represent—is a responsibility uniquely suited to the ombudsman because of his or her University-wide role as a conflict resolution resource. But of course the confidentiality of individual disputes must be preserved—otherwise the credibility of the ombudsperson as an impartial arbitrator will vanish.

At present, the ombudsman’s function is only vaguely defined. There are no guidelines for Ehrenreich’s specific day-to-day responsibilities or procedures for mediation. As soon as possible, he must carve out a meaningful role for the ombudsman amidst the maelstrom of disputes swirling among members of the University community. Creating a well-defined niche for impartial, informal conflict resolution will provide a great benefit to the Harvard community—and given the number of clashing ideas on campus, the ombudsperson’s office may soon need reinforcements.