RJ and Sexual Violence

Interesting read on how things might be different. Interestingly, sexual violence is one area that even some RJ practitioners struggle to work in. How do you bring those experiencing harm face to face with those who are the cause of it? Why is it harder? 

"I wanted what Ana María Archila Gualy, the survivor who confronted Sen. Jeff Flake when he stated he planned to vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, described: 'The way that justice works is that you recognize harm, you take responsibility for it, and then you begin to repair it.'

But for this to happen, everyone impacted by sexual violence needs to feel they can speak openly. Expulsion hearings, tribunals, or courts of law are not designed to do this; rather, these forums disincentivize truth-telling because those who harmed us know they’ll be punished if they admit what really happened. The risks are also high for survivors, who face social stigma for coming forward about their experiences and are often forced to undergo painful questioning."

(Emphasis mine.)

Read the full article here.

What is Restorative Justice? A helpful, short summary

I'm not familiar with this summer camp, but I found their short video to be very helpful in explaining Restorative Justice in a non-sensationalist way and without getting bogged down into the many RJ practices that you may associate with RJ.

The Power of Stories

"In 2016 and beyond, those who wish to create a better world
 will have to make storytelling the center of their efforts, not an
 afterthought. It’s clear that economic and military might will
always be the key levers of statecraft. But more than ever before,
 swift and dramatic change is being driven by powerful
narratives that crisscross the world at the speed of a click or a
swipe."

Read the full essay here...

Restorative Justice in Schools: Articles and Resources

Resources
What is restorative practices? IIRP

News Articles

When Restorative Justice in Schools Works, Atlantic, Emily Richmond
Interrupting the School to Prison Pipeline, Huffington Post, Fania Davis (RJforOaklandYouth)
Restorative Justice: What it is, and what it is not, Rethinking Schools

South Central PA
York City Schools offers alternative to suspension, 01/18/2016

Contra
Racial Bean-Counting is Making Schools Unsafe, Betsy McCaughey, New York Post
Reconciliation Programs Worsen Psychological Health, Study Finds, Georgetown University
Highline struggles with fallout of limiting student suspensions, Seattle Times

The Necessary Three: Justice, Mercy, Humility

In The Ethics of Teaching, by Kenneth Strike and Jonas Soltis, the authors contrast consequentialist theories of ethics versus non-consequentialist theories. Ultimately, their stance is that "the distinction between consequentialist and nonconsequentialist theories... enable[s] us to ask good question about hard cases. These different questions permit us to be clearer concerning what is at stake." The chart below organizes the questions that Strike and Soltis are referring to:

Consequentialist – What has the best consequences…	Nonconsequentialist- What we should do as a matter of principle…
What are the benefits we are aiming at? Are these benefits genuinely worthwhile? Are there unintended consequences we should consider? Whom do we intend to benefit? Are there others who are affected?	Are we being consistent? How would we feel were we to be treated in this way? Are we respecting those with whom we are interacting? Are the benefits distributed fairly? Are we treating people as ends rather than means?

As I've been considering this contrast between two perspective in ethics, it occurred to me that the consequentialist view might be identified with the word "mercy." When thinking like a consequentialist, you are focused on the outcome for all those involved. You aren't constrained by the so-called letter of the law, but by the effect. As EMU Professor Michael Young has pointed out, the consequentialist is the Jean Valjean of life. He/she does not deny the existence and necessity of the law, but believes that consideration of the consequences of ones actions necessitates bending of the law- and yes, mercy. 

On the other hand, we might identify the nonconsequentialist view with the word "justice." The word justice in this case representing principles and universal moral truths. Consistency is a major concern of the nonconsequentialist, typified by Javert. The Javert's of life see ethics as a system that is fixed in the stars, unbending and inflexible- and thus fair. 

So does mercy and justice belong side by side? Are they compatible? Micah 6:8 seems to suggest so.

He has shown you, O man, what is good;
And what does the Lord require of you
But to do justly,
To love mercy,
And to walk humbly with your God?

Justice and mercy- a delicate balance that must find an essential but uneasy co-existence in this flawed world. But not just these two things, one more essential ingredient: humility. Since the balance is not a simple one, since it is fraught with conflict and tough choices, humility must be at the forefront. 

Backlash: When poor execution makes "RJ" look bad...

Stemming from alarming reports regarding racial disparities in suspension rates, the DOE and the Obama administration has been exerting significant pressure to reduce these rates overall. Restorative Justice proponents have in turn been riding the wave of increased interest, touting the approach in schools as powerful and effective alternative to traditional discipline as well as an effective way of confronting bias. They're right. 

The problem for the RJ movement, however, is that it runs the risk of being sucked down and spit out, along with the rest of the many ill-conceived and poorly executed alternative discipline programs posing as restorative. Take New York City Schools, for example. From the sound of things, NYC schools are facing a major backlash to their suspension reduction campaign, not only from the pro-charter groups but even unions. Betsy McCaughey writes in the New York Post today:

The de Blasio administration is touting a dramatic decrease in school suspensions. That’s only because the unruly students are allowed to stay in the classroom, continuing to disrupt. Last week, at a United Federation of Teachers meeting, 81 percent of teachers said their students are losing learning opportunities because of the disorder and violence.

So instead of suspensions, what are schools doing to address the misbehavior in schools? According to McCaughey, "restorative justice." She writes:

Mayor Bill de Blasio has implemented the Obama administration’s policy of replacing suspensions with “restorative justice” — a kind of talk therapy — even for serious offenses such as insubordination, fighting, arson, assaults and marijuana possession.

We can assume that McCaughey isn't very familiar with what restorative justice actually is -her example of an Adlai Stevenson High School student being sent home with a "warning card" after being caught with seven bags of marijuana confirms that fact. But we can also assume that she's pretty representative of the general public's knowledge too. 

The result is a smear on the good name of Restorative Justice, an approach to discipline that is neither "soft" nor mere "talk therapy." In the words of leading expert Howard Zehr, "Restorative justice is a process to involve, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offense and to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations, in order to heal and put things as right as possible." This means that "restorative disciplines does not seek to deny consequences for misbehavior," write Lorraine Amstutz and Judy Mullet, in their book Restorative Discipline for Schools. "Instead, it focuses on helping students understand the real harm done by their misbehavior, to take responsibility for the misbehavior, and to commit to positive change." 

Restorative discipline takes time, resources, and commitment. And the same factors that make traditional discipline difficult in our most troubled schools make restorative discipline difficult too. Proponents of restorative justice in schools would do well not to oversell, or sell out, the integrity of their process in an effort to be a panacea to suspension rate inequality. 

Passive voice = the worst kind of victimization...

Here's what a well meaning and passionate advocate for students wrote in October 2015 (emphasis mine):

"Growing up, Cameron Simmons endured a gauntlet of school suspensions, expulsions, and arrests that could have easily condemned him to a life behind bars or even to an early violent death--the present lot of many of his childhood friends. But things turned around for Cameron in the 12th grade, when he found himself at the doorstep of a restorative justice school in West Oakland."

The passive voice is being used for effect, granted. The author wants us to see Mr. Simmons as a victim of at best a failed system, at worse of systemic oppression. She has an important message and I am elated for Mr. Simmons and the empowerment he found through RJ processes. By all accounts in the article, he has found the kind of agency that he was denied, at least rhetorically, in the paragraph above.

Zehr (Little Book of RJ)- Chapter 1

"Restorative justice focuses on needs [in a broad sense] more than deserts [though not neglecting its importance]."

Reading Zehr on "what RJ isn't" it became unclear what was left for it to be! He is clearly trying to clarify some false perceptions of a movement that has matured and grown in many directions. That makes sense.

It also makes sense to expand our view of justice in terms of addressing the greater needs of all stakeholders involved. But one can be excused if they feel squeamish about Zehr's statement that "victims should be able to identify their own needs." At a time where the subjective needs of the perceived victim take precedence over facts, we should all be a bit skeptical.

As Zehr highlights, the State is not particularly good at addressing justice in the broader sense he is advocating. Bad things seem to happen when it tries. Yet, I doubt most RJ advocates are ready to surrender the civic sphere entirely. Zehr claims, "Restorative Justice is neither a panacea nor necessarily a replacement for the legal system."

Finally, the metaphor of RJ as a "compass" and not a "map," seems helpful. By compass, he's suggesting that RJ tells us where to go but not necessarily how to get there.

The Little Book of Restorative Justice, by Howard Zehr

Thoughts on Justice

Initial Thoughts on the Idea of Justice 

What do we mean when we talk about justice? We believe in it as a guiding principle. It is central to our ethical system as a society. The assurance of justice and the absolute right to seek it; these are sacred cows. But it's actually hard to say what justice is.

Justice... is it a thing? A state of being? A process? An action?

Action(s): "We will ensure that justice is served."
Process: "May justice be done."
Attribute: "A warrior for justice"
Condition: "Justice for all"

I think of justice as getting what you deserve (just deserts). That's pretty simplistic and sounds mostly punitive- but I do mean it in the positive sense of the word too. I'm also realizing how individualistic that sounds. However, "community justice" sounds scary to me and evokes images of lynchings and vigilante style retribution. But justice doesn't occur in a vacuum.

Beginning

This year I will be completing a graduate certificate program in Restorative Justice for Schools through Eastern Mennonite University. My hope is that this course of study will compliment my growth as a 6-12th grade independent schools education leader. While I began teaching primarily focused on content (the emphasis of my M.A.T. portfolio at Johns Hopkins University), I've seen that the best teachers, and certainly the best administrators, are much more than master teachers of content. They are counselors, mentors and yes, disciplinarians.