Relational Fairness
Relational fairness is about how the person impacted was treated before, during, and after a decision. It asks the question: was the person impacted treated respectfully?
Even if a process is fair and a decision is fair, it may still feel unfair. These relational factors may have traditionally gone unaddressed, but are key to a fair environment.
- Active listening
- Information that is clear and accessible
- An honest and forthright decision-maker
- Polite and courteous treatment
- Transparency, especially about what can and cannot be done
- Confidentiality when appropriate
- Accountability and apologizing if a mistake is made in the process
- A trauma-informed process
- Cultural humility
Examples:
A student is confronted with an allegation of misconduct and asked to a meeting. The student arrives and after 15 minutes kept waiting past the indicated start time, enters the meeting to find three staff seated across a table in a boardroom with notepads. The meeting opens with one of the staff saying “So you know why you’re here, right?”
This process does not show respect for the student. There is little courtesy extended that would be expected in a professional environment. The student is put on the spot in a stressful and intimidating situation. There is little regard for the student’s time nor their privacy with three people in the room. While approaching a meeting with a paternalistic or directive demeanour may feel appropriate to some, this is at odds with the presumption of innocence and our commitment to respect.
A student appeals a decision about an academic concession that is based on a sensitive situation. After the person deciding on the appeal rules that the appeal will not be allowed, they email the results to the student, the Office of Student life, the student’s instructor, and the Associate-Dean.
The student’s privacy has not been respected and likely their trust has been breached. Beyond this, the student feels that the path to appealing to the Associate-Dean may be compromised. The student is required to take classes with the instructor in the future and is worried that the appeal and its contents could jeopardize future relationships.
After an exam period, a faculty member has upwards of 30 academic integrity cases to go through. They email each accused student with a form letter explaining that there are allegations and they can come in to speak for 15 minutes to explain themselves. After one of these 15-minute meetings, a student is sent a decision letter that states that they committed academic misconduct. In the letter, there is little content as to why the decision was made and no reference to the views that the student shared in the meeting.
The approach values efficiency over respect for the student’s dignity. Generic letters and a relatively short amount of time to defend one’s self does not match the gravity of the situation for the student. The penalty has major consequences for the student’s future and feels like he was not really listened to or respected.
A student is asked to attend a meeting about an allegation of misconduct over the exam period. The student asks for the meeting to be postponed because they both have exams and their grandmother is ill in the hospital. The request is accepted, however the date set is only one day after their last exam when they were planning on travelling home to visit their family.
Although there are likely pressing factors, acknowledgment and rationale for why the date was set as such would show respect for the student’s situation. This decision does not demonstrate cultural humility, as the student’s family and cultural obligations are not acknowledged.