What if We’d Used Restorative Practices?
When I was younger, I was camp person. Every summer, I went to camp. Camper, Counselor, Cook, Camp Director. It was the best of times. It was the best of times.
One summer, when I was in my early twenties, my good friend and I spontaneously organized a party for some counselors at a nearby lake. There was underage drinking involved. It was the early 1990s, at a time when underage drinking maintained a newly controversial status. Older teenagers had been able to drink with impunity (legal impunity for those over 18) until the late 1980s. In the first few years after the drinking age went up to 21, as many of us remember, colleges and other institutions—including summer camps—addressed the issue of underage drinking in many different ways. Some ignored it. Others changed their rules immediately in an attempt to change the culture, while still others provided different healthier alternatives. The list continues… As difficult as it was for institutional leaders, it was also a difficult time to know what was right and wrong for those of us experiencing it as “now-not-legal” drinkers and newly legal drinkers. (Perhaps it is the same today).
Back to the camp story…
The party was fun, innocent, and nobody got hurt. It even included some streaking. However, it was against camp rules, as stated in contracts we’d signed; and for many participants, it was illegal, as they were not yet twenty-one.
The directors, who discovered the next day that there had been a party, were not pleased. Despite the history of the camp as a place for fun, sometimes wild, parties, these were new times and the directors were in a difficult spot. They were impressive individuals, each of them, and remain so today. Educators, school leaders, family men. They used the system of justice they knew best: the conventional boarding school tribunal in which the investigators, judges, and jury are all wrapped up in the same body, perhaps not dissimilar to countries which practice civil law.
The investigation was done by having each counselor involved being individually interrogated by the directors. It was an adversarial approach. It encouraged lying and, thusly, different stories. It ended with a decision made by the directors as to the consequences (read: punishment) for us wrongdoers. Bitterness, resentment, and confusion all attended the one collective meeting.
I was angry about the punishment for a long time, and the process, until I became more of a leader and appreciated how difficult achieving justice is. At a place that encouraged collaboration and creativity and a whole lot of fun, why had we been treated like suspects and children? Fact is, the process that was used was perfectly legitimate, sound, and responsive. We were suspects and some were still just older teenagers.
BUT…
What if we had used restorative practices? We could have done the following:
The directors could have convened a meeting of those involved at any time prior to doling out the punishment, from the time of discovery until they had already reached their likely decision. We could have all spoken about everything involved: the history of the camp that many of us had experienced together, the difficult position the directors were in, the dishonesty of those of us who had lied, possible consequences, the emotions and relationships involved.
I’ll tell you what MIGHT have happened. The counselors would have accepted their punishment without the weight of anger attached, whether arrived at collaboratively or still primarily by the directors. The culture of the camp would have been more fully explored and clarified. The myriad relationships in the room would not have suffered harm, as some of them did.
Some will say that restorative practices eliminate consequences and accountability.
These folks are shortsighted and not wise.
Restorative practices, in their many forms—victim-offender conferencing, circle processes, diversionary programs that teach communication and conflict resolution skills, etc.—can always and many times do include a consequence piece. The difference is that the group as a whole, including the wrongdoer, buys into the punishment. Moreover, the long term impact on the group, the institution, any victims, and the wrongdoer, is far more positive and durable. The community, relationships, and individuals all feel more connected and empowered.
Cheers to that!
Mediate into Shape
Yesterday while I was delivering a presentation, the question of whether conflict resolution methods can effectively resolve intrapersonal conflicts came up. The answer I gave was, “Yes.”
Since then, I have looked at an intrapersonal conflict that I am involved in. The numbers in my life that I would like to see going down or staying the same are instead going up: weight, cholesterol, blood pressure. I continue to be a relatively healthy individual but change must occur. That is my conflict.
Well, let’s proceed through some steps that might occur during a mediation.
First, I shall state my position: “I must get into shape.”
(The opposition states proudly back: “History’s not on your side, pal.”)
Second, I will move quickly to interests. Health: I have a young son and a happy marriage and want to be around for the long haul. Economic: I don’t want to have to buy new clothes. Professional: When I am in better shape I have more stamina. Psychological: I want to feel good and look good.
Third, I shall list the legitimate concerns being hurled at me from the opposition:
- How are you going to start?
- When are you going to exercise?
- How are you going to change your diet?
- What does success look like?
- What will the consequences be if you don’t succeed?
The opposition is pretty powerful!
Let’s brainstorm, shall we:
How am I going to exercise and diet in a way that successfully improves my health, finances, and professional trajectory and keeps me accountable?
- Block out 30-60 minutes a day
- Use P90X tapes
- Run
- Sign up for a race
- Workout with other people
- Go on low-carb diet
- Play tennis and squash
- Watch less TV
- Go to sleep earlier
- Drink more water
That’s 10 items, a solid brainstorm. Now some solid reality testing is in order.
Last night I asked my wife how much she could realistically allow me to disappear each night to work out [kids, and all]. “One hour. I need you around.” She means “for the long haul.” So, when the house quiets down in the evening, I’ll go for thirty to sixty minutes. I’m not a morning person so forget that option.
While it is cold and gets dark early, I won’t be running outside. I can rely on P90X and play more tennis and squash. When it gets warmer and lighter, I can run outside, and maybe sign up for a race later in the spring, if all is going well. Maybe, I’ll try to improve on last year’s Broad Street Run time. I don’t really work out with other people, but getting playing partners is going to be a key to my success. Perhaps some lessons are in order, too.
Changing diet is always difficult. The low-carb diet takes discipline. Evidence suggests that temptation to eat spaghetti, pizza, and French fries is strong. Here, I will have to do my best. Breakfast and lunch are the easiest to control, so I will focus my efforts on them…
Now, the opposition says, “OK, but you still haven’t answered the question about consequences. What’ll happen when you fail?”
Not feeelin’ the love…
The consequences of doing nothing are not desirable, and I am not going to lash myself or cast me into Siberia. Therefore, I think it important to reframe the question of consequences into a question about success.
What does success look like? Success looks like me fitting into all my clothes, being able to compete on the tennis court and run comfortably, and not being a worry to my loved ones who will see me taking good care of myself.
Love Your Enemies
On the way to work this morning, I saw a bumper sticker that read:
I’m pretty sure when Jesus said, “Love your enemies,” he didn’t mean you should try to kill them.
It got me to thinking briefly about 9/11 and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
A good friend of mine in the ADR community told me once that one of her thoughts on that fateful day in 2001 was that she would negotiate with the terrorists if given the chance. I was in New York that day and most of my thoughts toward the terrorists were hostile and remained so for some months until I could better learn and understand their perspective, as much as I disagreed with it then and now.
Her point was not that she would casually enter into discussions with Al Qaeda and begin compromising and conceding. It was that she’d be willing to entertain a conversation in which a better understanding emerged, issues and concerns could be shared, and options could be generated for a possible resolution at less cost. She did not necessarily hold out that the negotiations would realistically be accepted by Al Qaeda, let alone proceed or succeed successfully. She simply had the instinct of wanting to speak to the other side first, before any continued bloodshed.
Before any we-will-not-negotiate-with-terrorists reflexes twitch, let’s bring in Dr. King…
Dr. King’s methods of civil disobedience and nonviolence assumed the posture that the other side would gradually move off of the positions they hold so sacredly—let’s recall that those positions were backward—if enough pressure was placed upon them by the peaceful methods of boycotts, the use of the courts, building coalitions and seeking federal intervention, and social mobilization; the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Freedom Rides, the Little Rock Nine, and the numerous marches and countless sit-ins and public meetings proved that posture to be effective.
Other civil rights leaders put forth more militant and defensive beliefs, like Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael, but they, too, led peaceful protests and exchanged ideas responsibly during their respective public lives. The movement and its leaders created opportunities for interaction on a peaceful level. Virtually all escalation of and outright violence involving authority figures and protesters during the civil rights movement was initiated by the authority figures themselves.
And yet Dr. King continued to reach out to them, speak to them, and challenge them in their thinking…and progress was and continues to be made.
Now let’s compare.
In both instances, peaceful interaction and negotiation are being offered. Dr. King offered it as the weaker party in most respects. He lacked formal and physical authority, but he did derive some power from his message, his network of influential friends, and his most awe-inspiring voice.
Post 9/11, the United States was still the most powerful military country in the world and had about as much international good will as any country ever. Al Qaeda’s power came from the popularity of its message to its devoted followers, its expertise of communications technology, and its cynical faith to jihad. That is some power, but pales in comparison.
What better time to offer your enemies a seat at the negotiating table? Now I can see why Al Qaeda leaders might not accept that invitation, given the concessions they would likely have to give, but why not have the instinct to ask? If a legitimate request, it would increase good will among not only allies but those on the fence, and even those who only gave tepid support to Osama bin Laden. If accepted, perhaps it would have averted or shortened two stoppable wars. Either way, the thinking is essential to progress.
Dr. King and my friend, and many an individual, wish to engage their adversaries in constructive dialogue in an effort to make progress. It’s a process that can be messy, confusing, and emotional—I suspect war is, too—but it’s love.
So “love your enemies.”
By the way, here’s the verse from Matthew 5:
43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemiesand pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Mediation and the New Custody Statute
“Have you or anyone in your household ever been arrested?” The question hangs out there and I am hoping the response is, “No.”
As a mediator who handles custody matters in domestic relations court, I ask this question as part of the screening process to determine whether specific parties are appropriate for mediation. The questions are mostly designed to identify any power imbalances due to domestic violence or other factors. This last question is asked to clear a possible legal impediment. As a result of a new statute in Pennsylvania, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §5321-5340, individuals seeking custody who have been arrested for certain crimes must be evaluated by the court before the judge can award that custody. Also, all household members must be similarly evaluated.
This statute is designed to protect the interests of children by making sure the court has considered many factors—criminal history being just one—and keeps some oversight over the custodial arrangements of separated and divorced parents. Well-intentioned, the statute makes sure the judges complete thorough reviews to reduce the possibility of putting a child in harm’s way.
As a mediator, I cannot hear a case for the court in which a party has committed one of the enumerated offenses. Whether it is a recent conviction for aggravated assault or a thirty year old plea to DUI, a “Yes” to the question at the top followed by further acknowledgement of a conviction or plea, stops the screening, and, therefore, the mediation, in its tracks.
It is frustrating sometimes. A young man’s mother, with whom he lived—had an old drug possession conviction, but he and his ex-girlfriend had a well-organized parenting plan. A woman was in a fight as a nineteen year old and pled to aggravated assault. Now 40, she wants to put together a constructive schedule for her three children.
I can’t help in these situations. I show these parents the parenting plan from the statute and let them know of what lies ahead for them: that a judge will hear the case and that these convictions and pleas might, or might not, undermine their efforts to obtain a custody arrangement of their liking.
Some parties are understanding. Others are perplexed and confused. Still others are furious.
Judges, too, are facing challenges with this part of the new statute. They can never be sure if they have all the correct information. They sometimes schedule full hearings only to find out that the person with the criminal history is now a model citizen. They appreciate these wrinkles and their own vital responsibility.
A proposition: where parties are organized in their planning and thinking, or even where they want to take a shot to mediate their custody arrangements, and where a judge has made a determination that a party or household member is not going to present a negative to children, provide the parties with the opportunity to resume mediation. This serves the original purposes of mediation: allow for party self-determination, free up courts to conduct contested hearings, and allow the time and space for parties to reach durable and doable resolutions.
Neocons Must Go Now
I am glad the New York Times invites different voices to express themselves on the Op-Ed page but do I really have to be subjected to John Bolton and John Yoo, two neoconservatives who preach the gospel of American exceptionalism.
Today, they write in their piece that the Senate should have its Treaty power restored, whereby any treaty signed must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate, and that President Obama should not allow treaties to pass by the other common method used by modern presidents, called an Congressional-executive agreement by them, and also known as joint resolutions. Texas joined the union by joint resolution back in 1845, not by treaty.
Now all of this sounds good and fine. The Constitution is our sacred document. As Americans, it is the one thing we all agree is a paramount document. But that is all noise to distract the reader into buying what they are really selling: that America is the exception to every rule that the international community wants to put forward.
Remember John Bolton, he who was appointed to the UN during a recess and had at one point as a stated goal to destroy the institution. And John Yoo, a guy who believes in the Unitarian executive theory, and, save for this article, would just as well see the Capitol fall into the reflecting pool and disappear forever.
These guys simply don’t want the United States to consider the Kyoto Accord and its successor agreements. They don’t want the United States to be subjected to the International Criminal Court, which could find that some folks working in the name of this country actually committed war crimes (see Dick Cheney; se also Henry Kissinger).
These guys simply want the United States to play by its own rules and never have to yield to international pressure.
America is an exceptional country. It is the land of opportunity. It is a beacon of freedom. It is a place where dissidents and dissonance are welcome. But that doesn’t make it more equal than everyone else in the world. If we stand for equality in this country, then we must be compelled to accept equality in the world community.
Some might say I am naïve in thinking this way; that we must protect this country from entangling alliances and follow those sacred words of George Washington. Well, President Washington was addressing the notion of taking sides. Kyoto and the ICC are about collaboration and accountability to make this world a better, safer, and cleaner place.
NFL: Week 17 Picks
Carolina (-3) at New Orleans
Still playing for the division title, the Panthers will be doing everything to win this game, and it will work.
Houston (-3) vs. Chicago
The Texans are a late season surprise. The Bears are a special teams force. But, alas, the Bears will miss the playoffs as they lose in Texas.
Pittsburgh (-10.5) vs. Cleveland
Romeo, Romeo…wherefore art thou? Gone after this game. A casualty of continued mediocrity for the new mistake by the lake.
Detroit (+10) at Green Bay
I guarantee nothing here.
Cincinnati (-3) vs. Kansas City
Cincinnati, now that it’s way too late, is actually performing like a solid football team.
Buffalo (+6) at New England
This will be a close divisional contest that New England will win.
New York Giants (+6.5) at Minnesota
They say the Giants will rest, but I wouldn’t be so sure that means they are going to lay down. Ths rivalry is long and heated, and sometimes results in bizarre outcomes.
Tampa Bay (-13) vs. Oakland
Tampa Bay can still make it and they have the easiest shot with Oakland in town. Down goes the Cable Guy!
Atlanta (-14) vs. St. Louis
Blowout from the starting kickoff. Enough said.
Indianapolis (+3) vs. Tennessee
Home dog will prevail against the mighty Titans. This could turn into an exhibition game since both teams are already locked into the playoffs.
Philadelphia (-1) vs. Dallas
The Cowboys’ luck will run out—probably because of something Tony Romo does. Will the Eagles make the playoffs? Lots of scoreboard watching in this one.
Baltimore (-12.5) vs. Jacksonville
Baltimore needs a victory here. Jacksonville needs the season to be over.
New York Jets (-3) vs. Miami
This is the game of the week. Who would have thunk it? In sloppy GIANTS Stadium, I see a late score to pushe the Jets over the top.
Seattle (+6.5) at Arizona
Seattle will play well for Coach Holmgren on the final Sunday. Arizona’s free fall will continue.
San Francisco (-3) vs. Washington
The 49ers are going one way and the Redskins are going the other way.
Denver (+8) at San Diego
All signs point to San Diego winning going away, but I just don’t trust them in a big spot like this. Rivers has too much hate inside of him.
NFL: Week 16 Picks
Last week was one for the ages. OUCH! If you are still reading this blog, it means you have a sense of loyalty. Or, you are looking at my picks and going the other way, which is a method I used when my father was a gambling man.
Anyway, I actually feel good about the picks below. This could be a redemptive weekend.
Dallas (-4) vs. Baltimore
Dallas is peaking at exactly the right time of the season. This game is going to be close and could fall right on the number, but I am impressed with just how powerful the Cowboys are right now.
New England (-7.5) vs. Arizona
The Cardinals in cold Foxboro just doesn’t make a lot of sense. New England is still in a big playoff fight so they should dispatch the Arizona.
Cincinnati (+3) at Cleveland
The lowly battle of Ohio on the shores of Lake Erie. The Dawg Pound will be moaning as Cincinnati enjoys some more late season success at the hands of the ailing Browns.
Miami (-4) at Kansas City
The Dolphins need to keep winning. They are better in all facets of the game. December in Arrowhead could be tough but the Chiefs just do not have any game.
Detroit (+7) vs. New Orleans
Detroit may well win this game. They have been so close for so long now, and the Saints come limping in with their season over.
Tennessee (+2) vs. Pittsburgh
The team with the best record in football is a home underdog? This is very interesting. Pittsburgh, as good a team as it is, has been lucky, and is going to run out of that luck this weekend.
Tampa Bay (-3.5) vs. San Diego
Tampa Bay will win this game by at least a touchdown. San Diego has disappointed all season long. At least the weather is nice out there.
San Francisco (-5.5) at St. Louis
The 49ers will continue to show that they have integrity as a team even though there is little to play for, except for a tougher schedule next year and a lower draft pick.
Denver (-7) vs. Buffalo
In Mile High Stadium, flailing Buffalo will run out of gas against the high powered, if deeply flawed, Bronco team.
Houston (-7) at Oakland
If only Houston had started the season as well as it is finishing it, they would be considered for the playoffs.
Seattle (+4.5) vs. New York Jets
The Jets are 0-3 on the west coast. If they prevent going winless, it will not be by much.
Minnesota (-3) vs. Atlanta
This is a giant game between two emerging powers. I take Minnesota only because they are home.
Philadelphia (-5) at Washington
The Jim Zorn era may be getting shorter and shorter with each passing loss. Look for the surging Eages to keep their slim playoff chances alive here.
New York Giants (-3) vs. Carolina
The Giants are going to overpower the Panthers, everyone’s darling right now.
Chicago (-4) at Green Bay
Green Bay is done. Chicago still has a shot, and is a respectable team.
NFL: Week 15 Picks
I’ve become an average picker people. I don’t seem to have my early season form. Why? I don’t know but if you do, please tell me.
This week’s games offer some real excitement, critical matchups, and a couple of duds that would be better off in, say, London.
Enjoy the games.
Buffalo (+8) at New York Jets
Which Jets team will show up? Have the Bills fallen off a cliff? Divisional rivalry late in the season. I say it stays close. Take the Bills and the points.
Detroit (+17) at Indianapolis
Huge spread. Huge mismatch. Detroit is, as Charles Barkely is now famous for saying, “TURRIBLE.” The Colts are riding high. Poor Rod Marinelli. Well, at least he has a job for now.
Green Bay (-2.5) at Jacksonville
Two terribly disappointing teams playing a mostly meaningless game. Take the home underdog in Jacksonville.
San Diego (-5.5) at Kansas City
Now that San Diego is counted out, look for them to bust out a can of whoopass. Sorry KC.
San Francisco (+6.5) at Miami
Two rising teams. Maybe next year’s Super Bowl matchup? Not really, but this will still be a fun game to watch between two enthusiastic teams, one of which has playoff aspirations. Miami is the pick.
Seattle (-2.5) at St. Louis
The Who the Hell Cares Bowl. I don’t think anyone in either city is terribly interested. Maybe those poor television stations could save some money and not show up at all. I’ll take St. Louis.
Tampa Bay (+3) at Atlanta
Now this is a game. A playoff game for sure. Tampa Bay risks falling back in the race. Atlanta may have done its best work already. I’d stay away if I was actually putting my money anywhere, but I’ll take the Falcons.
Tennessee (-3) at Houston
Tennessee doesn’t need to win. Houston is just getting better and better but still outside of the playoff picture. The Titans are so damned professional, I can’t bet against them. If I could, I might make some money this week.
Washington (-6.5) at Cincinnati
Sorry Redskins fans, but your team is going to lose this game. Clinton Portis vs. Jim Zorn, The Reality Show, will continue.
Minnesota (+3) at Arizona
Two fast teams playing on a fast track down in the desert. This could be like an old AFL game with point being scored up in the 40s. I like Arizona.
Denver (+7.5) at Carolina
That extra half point scares me. Carolina should win, and maybe handily, but Denver is impossible to read. Based on that logic, and a hunch, I’m taking the Broncos to cover.
New England (-7) at Oakland
New England is in unfamiliar terrain. Oakland is in a landfill. Give the points and take the visiting Pats.
Pittsburgh (+2) at Baltimore
Great big physical game. OUCH! The Ravens are a solid team. Hopefully the sideshow between T-Sizzle and Hines Ward won’t take center sage. I like the Ravens at home.
New York Giants (+3) at Dallas
New York is in the playoffs. Dallas needs a win. Romo needs some big game integrity. Here on Sunday night, will he get it. Sorry, even if he does, I’m a Giants fan so I ain’t betting on him.
Cleveland (+14) at Philadelphia
Philadelphia is getting better. They had a great game last week. Cleveland is reeling. All the more reason to take the Browns to cover.
Last Week: 7-8
Season: 102-100-5
NFL: Saints v. Bears
Thursday night football, a regular staple now (which most of us still can’t see), is at it again.
Tonight the Bears host the Saints in Cold, Rain, and Snow.
Well, I married me a wife and she’s been trouble all my life… I’m going where the chilly winds don’t blow!
Wait, I digress.
Take the Bears, give the 3 points.
Pick: Bears (-3)
2 comments