I teach children how to conduct peer mediation. Early on, they learn that mediation (which is non-adversarial, is not the same as negotiating or decision making by a judge or jury, but instead asks the disputing parties to offer solutions to their own conflict and then choose and implement the best choices agreed upon by both parties) requires that they as mediators maintain unbiased impartiality, and that they not align themselves with either disputant; if they show partiality, the process breaks down immediately. If they are successful in keeping their feelings or biases out of the process, children or anyone, for that matter, can mediate disputes between their best friends, their worst enemies, people of any age, gender, race, etc. While mediation clearly is not what is expected of a Supreme Court justice (in fact, mediation is more closely allied with some therapeutic processes), the tasks involved for both a child mediator and a Supreme Court justice–conflict resolution and judicial decision making–are best served when people are treated equally, without biases, and when justice is dispensed it is done so blindly. If the kids get it, why can’t the grown-ups?
