In the latest law report a brave attempt was made to explain how difficult it is to avoid bias in bridge club disciplinary hearings. This is simply down to an irrefutable fact that most committee members harbour unconscious biases.
Unconscious is defined as " not perceived at the level of awareness , occurring below the level of conscious thought ".
Bias is defined as " a particular tendency or inclination , especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question " .
Most committees are formed with the belief that the views and perspectives from different individuals can lead to better decisions than a single person. However, this means they must take into consideration the minority views, their needs , values, and frames of reference , simply to balance those which have been voiced by the majority. Alternative views must be canvassed , welcomed and considered, and should they be rejected then this is stems from over-riding and more convincing arguments winning the debate. In such circumstances compromise agreements and well merited decisions should follow.
Nevertheless , participating in a disciplinary hearing, say within a private members' club , is fraught with difficulty given the close and cosy relationships between groups of members , both inside and outside the committee. Individual committee members however must recognise that they are under a legal obligation to make decisions in an objective , fair and impartial way.
The disciplinary process must be conducted in an appropriate manner and way, which guarantees for all alleged offenders a full , fair , and impartial hearing. In order to achieve this guarantee , both the fairness and impartiality requirements must be maintained throughout all phases of the process . Committees should be cognisant of a number of dynamics as they work ........ both individually and together as a committee.
First and foremost , committee members must recognise the risk of unconscious bias that may influence them as they proceed. All of us have natural , built-in biases , being long held opinions which make us feel so more comfortable . These biases are not necessarily bad unless they prevent us from being open to " new and different " perspectives , or prevent us from discarding the stereotypes and prejudices we have held about others. Unfortunately , these biases tend to be unconscious ones , which have the power to negatively affect and undermine our thinking.
Recognising, understanding and confessing to owning these biases are essential steps to earning respect and trust from ordinary members within the club. It is natural for a committee to want rid of troublesome members , who they consider as " bad apples ", having a mischievous tendency to cause disharmony and distress. Yet at the same time the committee members must strive to resist any temptation to arrive at premature or unfounded judgements. For instance , it may be necessary to distinguish bad behaviour which stems from malicious proactive intent from that which is an over-sensitive reaction to unwarranted provocation.
All too often committee members have already formed their own opinion of troublemakers long before they have summoned to attend a disciplinary meeting. They might already feel uncomfortable with the troublemaker's' demeanour , the way he/she speaks or answers questions , or even how they regard the committee. Few would claim aloud that these things caused them concern , since they are often unconscious or unspoken concerns.
Given we all have unconscious bias , then a properly functioning committee needs to acknowledge and face this bias in an honest and productive manner , helping to check each other's blindspots. It is the duty of every member involved in a disciplinary process to address issues of perceived actual or potential bias , especially if they see emotions taking over from one's ability to remained detached and objective.
Concerns need to be verbalised , and not ignored by pretending that such concerns don't exist. By addressing these doubts and concerns " head on " everyone benefits , allowing the process to take place in a climate of impartiality and good faith......one which satisfies the minimum requirements of the law. This basic standard of course revolves around that of the reasonable independent observer , who would expect all decisions to be the logical outcome of a thorough investigation of the facts , a fair and proper review of these facts , an impartial and careful weighing up of conflicting evidence and/or opposing arguments , with reasons given at the end , which appear fully justified and merited . When a decision clearly appears adverse or perverse , then he will perceive the spectre of unconscious bias having been at work.
No comments:
Post a Comment