NW Justice Forum

I was in Portland the 28th and 29th of June for the 8th annual NW Justice Forum.

While there is much to discuss regarding the material and interesting people that I met, I will focus on two pieces.  The first will be a discussion by Aaron Lyons of the Fraser Region Community Justice Initiatives.  This discussion was a deep, thoughtful exploration of how shame, empathy, worthiness and vulnerability interplay around harm and punishment.  The second piece (which will be a different post) will be regarding how dealing with real trauma from violence is qualitatively different than other types of harm and needs to be treated differently; this includes using different facilitative tools.  This second topic was facilitated by Alan Edwards.

Often people ask, "What role does shame play in addressing harm?"  First, let's define shame.  According to Dr. Brene Brown: Shame is the intensely painful feeling or experience of believing we are flawed and therefore unworthy of acceptance and belonging.  So where does this "unworthiness" fit into discipline?  Aaron argues that shame is exactly what we don't want to feel.  In fact, if we want to change behavior, we need to promote acceptance and belonging - the opposite of shame.  Promoting connection in discipline is essential for those that have harmed to feel a desire to make amends. Aaron makes the case that shame and empathy are opposite ends of an emotional pendulum.  In this way, empathy is the experience of connectedness, or the experience of deep and true understanding and inclusion.  


The conversation moved on to conclusions about what to do after we understand this.  If shame and empathy are related and on the same spectrum, then what?...  Restorative Justice can use vulnerability to move an experience from one of shame to one of empathy.  This is the beauty of Restorative Justice.  RJ creates the safe space to be vulnerable and then experience empathy.  By using this process RJ facilitators don't "teach" empathy but instead provide the space to experience a true emotion.

Canadian Study... What are Intermediate Outcomes?

Responding to young people responsible for harm: 

a comparative study of restorative and conventional approaches

This is a report out of Calgary CA.  Canada has a rich an growing tradition of Restorative Justice.  From the Centre for Restorative Justice which is an initiative by the Simon Fraser University School of Criminology to programs in the federal department of Correctional Services and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.  While this report struggles a bit with its sample size (which is small and both the control and treatment groups) I would like to point out what they classify as "intermediate outcomes".  RJ evaluations often measure recidivism in order to show success.  A reduction in recidivism when compared to traditional is an incredibly important outcome of RJ policies.  Reductions in recidivism is not the only measurable outcome.  The authors of this study interviewed 40 RJ facilitators in order to develop the following list.



Accountability:
     Assuming responsibility
     Experiencing empathy
     Experiencing remorse
     Committing to redress the harm
Relationship repair:
     Experiencing respect     
     Understanding impact
Closure:
     Experiencing acknowledgment
     Experiencing hopefulness for the future

These are important and measurable outcomes that Restorative Justice programs can use.

An older article but a foundational one.

Ted Wachtel is one of the primer writers and philosophers in the RJ field. This is an old but accessible article. This paper out lines the "social control" model. The "social-control" model is a response to a narrow idea that responses to harm need to be either permissive of punitive.While this is not what I prefer it is important to note where it comes from. Some work done by a friend of mine explores this work even further. I will post his work at a later date.
Mr. Wachtel makes clear that Restorative Justice is not a model...so what is it? Restorative Justice is a philosophy. This thought pattern frames how people engage with conflict.  This paper outlines several characteristics of RJ, and serve to make conflict more restorative.  They are to foster awareness, avoid scolding or lecturing, involve offenders actively, accept ambiguity, separate the deed from the doer and see every instance of wrongdoing and conflict as an opportunity for learning.  These seem to be clear and concise aspects of R,J but one has to ask: What is the goal of RJ?  This article doesn't effectively engage with the topic.  Wachtel only mentions that "our ultimate goal is freedom from the kind of control that wrongdoers impose on others," (pg 1).  I find this to be a "nice" and vague goal.  A goal that doesn't inform the practice.  I have yet to see clear and convincing arguments made to the goals of RJ.

Ted Wachtel, RJ in Everyday Life (1999)

Discussions about Bullying Policies and Free Speech

I recently completed a paper discussing the for and against positions of the Washington State Bullying legislation that was originally passed in 2003. This wasn't as much of a softball issue as I had originally thought. There seems to be a significant movement to prevent states from passing these anti-bullying laws, due to fear that these laws will promote "homosexuality" among school age youth. While this seems completely ridiculous there has be some traction around the nation.

Nonetheless, the argument is often shrouded in "free speech" arguments. That is to say, anti-bullying laws will infringe on students' "free speech." This article by the American Jewish Comittee (http://www.ajc.org) articulates the limits of free speech and bullying/harassment.


"It is important to distinguish between speech that expresses an idea, including religious or political viewpoints—even ideas some find offensive —and speech that is intended to cause, or school officials demonstrate is likely to cause, emotional or psychological harm to the listener. Words that convey ideas are one thing; words that are used as assault weapons quite another." (pg.7)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ee1e4gdnskgroj5/Harassment%20-%20Free%20Speech.pdf

Boy Suspended for Allergy Pill, Zero Tolerence

This is an ACLU report with supporting documentation regarding the suspension of a boy in NJ for possession of an allergy pill. Understanding Zero-Tolerance and its affect on students is essential for changing policy in schools. How do schools articulate zero-tolerance?

http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/1in5njschoolsputsupbarrier.htm

This is the OSPI's School Safety Center, this page has links to several RCW's related to discipline.
http://www.k12.wa.us/SafetyCenter/Discipline/default.aspx

Who am I and what am I doing here?

My name is Nicholas Bradford. I have been a life-long student of conflict and education. I started my journey interested in education, specifically democratic, experiential and progressive education. Through happenstance I took the long road to education. I was diverted away from the traditional classroom and found my way toward creative education models. After exploring creative education models, I found Restorative Justice. This has been a galvanizing force in my life. After two years in Vermont I moved back to Washington. Finding little Restorative Justice in the greater Seattle area, I plugged into the Dispute Resolution Centers. I have become a Mediator and have blended that experience into my RJ facilitation. My passion is in alternative discipline models for Schools, Colleges and Youth Serving Agencies. With this blog, I am creating a community and resource for the RJ community for the Puget Sound region. I will be posting interesting articles, program, reports and pertinent happenings in the realm of discipline. This will not just be a re-posting of interesting discipline stories. This will be informative and academic in nature. I expect this to be critical in a helpful fashion as well as being supportive/creative. Expect my opinion. My best, Nicholas