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!

Advertisement