Restorative justice embodies a shift away from a criminal legal system governed by a retributive paradigm, which focuses on punishment in response to criminal behavior or disobedience with regard to a set of rules or code of behavior. Restorative justice reframes approaches to addressing harm in a way that emphasizes community building and conflict resolution principles as well as practices that enrich relationships, enhance communication, create safe spaces for dialogue, and fosters sustainable resolutions
| Restorative | Retributive | |
|---|---|---|
| Questions | 1. What harm occurred? 2. What are the needs? 3. Who is obligated? | 1. What rule was broken? 2. Who broke the rule? 3. What should be the punishment? |
| Accountability | Person(s) who harmed accepts and takes accountability → Active accountability | Person(s) who harmed accepts and takes accountability → Active accountability |
| Community Involvement | All voices in the dialogue are involved to negotiate reparation to the harmed and the community; Focus on all involved | Follows standardized judicial process in which state power is unilaterally imposing punishment; Focus on person who did the harm |
| Relationship Dynamic | The restorative process is cooperative | The retributive process is adversarial |
Restorative and punitive justice are also clearly applied in the context of our campus. At the Restorative Justice Center, we use the following continuum to provide a framework to determine where a policy and/or action falls on the restorative/punitive justice spectrum below.
This framework above presents a spectrum of restorative justice practices which will be used to analyze where actions and characteristics of campus policies and events fall within this continuum.
Student Code of Conduct
The above continuum will be applied to the investigation and hearing processes of the Student Code of Conduct and analyzed under a restorative justice lens.
Investigation Process
Upon filing a complaint, Student Code of Conduct cases undergo an investigation conducted by the Center for Student Conduct (CSC). This includes discussions of the incident in question with the student alleged to have violated the Code and potentially others who were involved. The Center for Student Conduct reviews the case and conducts an investigation. After the investigation, the CSC independently decides the outcome of the case whether or not the student is responsible for the violation. The student can either accept the outcome or request a hearing.
Engagement - Partially Restorative
The student(s) alleged to have violated the Code are included in the discussion of the incident in question. However, the individuals harmed are isolated from this process while the Center for Student Conduct staff lead the investigation. This establishes a unilateral judicial process between the party that caused the harm and the Center for Student Conduct instead of a bilateral process that encompasses all parties involved, including those harmed.
Accountability - Can Be Restorative
The purpose of the investigation is largely to determine what rule was violated and impose the appropriate sanction or consequences. Discretion is given to the individual Conduct Officer, and the respondent is invited to take accountability. This results in a passive form of accountability (as opposed to active accountability which focuses on addressing the impacts of the harm caused over imposing punishment).
To shift from passive to active accountability, the conversation should focus on the needs of the person who committed the violation and those of the harmed party.
Restoration - Partially Restorative
A resolution is determined through such discussions in the investigation process. Efforts for finding a resolution are established in a unilateral discussion between the Center for Student Conduct which is expected to impose punishment on those who caused the harm. The resolution determines (1) whether or not the student caused the harm and (2) what sanction to apply to the responsible student. The students harmed (in applicable cases) are not offered an option to participate in this process.
Hearing Process
If the investigation shows that there was no violation, the case may be dropped. If the investigation yields evidence of a Code violation, the Center for Student Conduct will propose a resolution and students may be given the opportunity to resolve the case by accepting the outcome from the CSC. If the student chooses to reject the outcome or the Center for Student Conduct determines it necessary, the case will be handled by either an administrative hearing or panel hearing (although the majority of cases go to a panel hearing).
The process for both types of hearings is the same:
-
Center for Student Conduct Staff will present witnesses and information related to the case.
-
Students can share information and present witnesses.
-
The hearing body will determine whether it is more likely than not that students violated the Code, and if so, will recommend an appropriate sanction to the Dean of Students.
If the accused student requests a panel hearing, the CSC either coordinates a formal hearing with a panel consisting of a student with the CSC, faculty, and CSC staff (typically two faculty in academic conduct cases), presided over by the Independent Hearing Officer. In this hearing, the accused student has the opportunity to present their case after which the panel decides the sanctions (e.g. suspension, expulsion, etc.). This decision, along with the panel’s justification, is sent to the Dean of Students, who can decide whether or not to accept the panel’s decision or unilaterally modify it.
Engagement - Can Be Restorative
Not only is the involvement of those directly affected disregarded, but this shifts any decision-making power away from those involved in and impacted by the incident to the relevant authorities instead which alienates involved members from the judicial process. Although students do have a choice to resolve the case informally, which is a limited opportunity for student input, there is no clear and stated process for involving all relevant parties (those who did the harm, those who were harmed, and the broader community) in dialogue. The harm is defined by a formal university process, which is often outside of those who are affected by the harm. Final decisions and final options for resolution are made and approved by a formal system.
Accountability - Can be restorative
For both the panel and the Dean of Students, the primary focus of the hearing is deciding the rule that was violated and the associated sanctions, which results in passive accountability. There is little explicit attention paid to the harms, the underlying causes of the harms, or the needs that arise for all parties involved. As a result, there is little opportunity for active accountability on the part of the person who did the harm.
Restoration - Partially restorative
Other than the Restitution sanction (reimbursements, monetary payments), and the Counseling sanction (e.g., psychological, anger management, and substance usage counseling), there is no explicit focus on restoring losses or addressing the needs by the committed harm. The primary focus is the rehabilitation of the person who committed the harm. In addition, the harm and the restitution sanction are defined by the panels, which are not composed of those directly involved in the harm.
In an administrative hearing, the Independent Hearing Officer will preside alone.
Engagement - Can Be Restorative
Students are included in the panel but there are no explicitly stated opportunities for dialogue. Instead of a panel consisting of faculty, students, and staff who can bring different perspectives to the decision, the administrative panel gives sole authority for decision making to the Independent Hearing Officer. The result is a lack of engagement from the parties involved in the harm (the people directly harmed and/or the broader community).
Accountability & Restoration - Can Be Restorative
Both panel hearings and administrative hearings reflect similar levels of restorative practices implemented in that both pay little attention to the impacts of the harms caused, the needs of the parties involved that subsequently arise, and exclude the impacted parties in the judicial process.
Student Advocate’s Office
The Student Advocate’s Office provides resources and aid to students who are involved in CSC cases. Students have the right to get a consultation with a student advocate on any part of their case and to have a student advocate present during a hearing. While the SAO representative is not allowed to talk during the hearing, they can pause it at any time to consult with the student. Student advocates cannot work with PRB cases (see below). This offers more support and engagement for the students.
Shifting Away from Punitive Practices to the Restorative Paradigm
The flowchart below presents amendments to the current process that have been proposed which have yet to be implemented. This was a year-long process between the Restorative Justice Center and Center for Student Conduct to create a proposal that introduced a restorative justice pathway for students within the Center for Student Conduct. It was determined that restorative justice would only be applied for behavioral cases, but the Center for Student Conduct is continuing to work on putting this into effect.
Peer Review Board
The Peer Review Board (PRB) attends to alleged violations of the residential code of conduct, which is separate from the student code of conduct. These violations typically include low-severity cases such as drinking, noise violations, dorm parties, etc. The board is composed of student volunteers, most of whom live in the dorms. Volunteers are encouraged to approach cases from a restorative justice philosophy that centers empathy for the accused students. The structure of the board is democratic as the volunteers collectively vote on whether they think the accused student is responsible and if so, which sanction to impose. The possible sanctions are not punitive, but instead are designed to elicit reflections from students about how they can avoid doing harm in the future and the possible negative impacts of their actions on the community.
Engagement - Partially restorative
The key stakeholders (student who is accused, RAs, and student volunteers representing the community) are provided opportunities to participate, but the final decision is made by a formal system. However, the decision is made democratically by the members of the community.
Accountability - Partially restorative
The focus is on addressing the harm done and how the person who committed the harm can avoid doing the same harm in the future. In addition, the empathy centered approach can address underlying causes to the harms done. The process can be more fully restorative in terms of accountability if there was more of an explicit focus on identifying the needs of the person or community that was harmed as well as the person who did the harm.
Restoration - Partially restorative
While the PRB sanctions are designed to elicit reflection from the person who did the harm so that they can avoid doing the same harm in the future, there can be more emphasis on addressing the impacts of the harms and concrete actions to meet the needs that arise for all involved.