[Peace-discuss] [Discuss] Excellent comment on N-G story

[Mikhail Lyubansky]

Hi folks,

Some of you know me but, for those who don't, I teach and write about
restorative justice and do restorative justice work in the community (and
on campus).  Along with Elaine Shpungin, I co-facilitated this restorative
process.

As I think it is necessary and useful to engage critical perspectives to
all policies and processes, including restortive justice, I am grateful to
David for his critique.  Below I respond to what he wrote and, in some
cases, provide a counter-narrative for those who are interested in hearing
it.



On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 9:13 AM, David Green via Discuss-CommunityCourtwatch
<discuss-communitycourtwatch at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> I support restorative circles in principle, but I don't blame the students
> for not showing up to this one – the smart money says that a condition of
> the driver's involvement was the barring of any conversation about a
> possible charge of reckless endangerment. Why would students – or anybody,
> for that matter – want to be involved in a discussion where their
> perspective about true blame and true accountability wouldn't be permitted
> air time?
>

Restorative Justice (RJ) generally rejects the focus on blame and
punishment.  Instead, the focus is on understanding how one's actions
impacted others, taking responsibility for one's choices and actions, and
then collectively deciding how to repair the harm (for all who feel harmed)
and otherwise "making things right".

The decision not to bring charges against either the driver of the vehicle
or any of the students was made by the State's attorney before the Circle
was initiated.  As part of the conditions for the Circle (because we needed
for everyone to have the freedom to express themselves fully and honestly),
we obtained a written and signed statement from her that no charges would
be brought against ANYONE based on what was said or done in the Circle.
These types of conditions allow everyone to show up and speak honestly, if
they want to.  Although some of the students chose not to attend, there
were others present who questioned the intentions and the choices of the
driver of the vehicle, just as the motives of the students and school
administrators were questioned and explored.  A lot of effort was made to
ensure that all sides were represented and that different points of view
could be expressed, and this did indeed happen.




> Reitz and the N-G conveniently omit this part of the story, of course,
> because to include it would be to present the issue in a political light,
> worthy of debate and discussion, instead of the package the story was
> placed in from the start: just another act of vandalism for which someone
> should pay. And, oh yes, irresponsible education staff – let's not forget
> to press that button, too.
>

This was (and continues to be) a very politically charged event and I think
a variety of parties were influenced by their political agendas, but I
don't think there was any intention to mislead on this point.  In any case,
I am happy to talk about the signed letter publicly.




> Committing an act of civil disobedience means you are willing to accept
> the consequences for your actions, on general principle, because you
> believe a greater moral argument is at work. The students clearly had a
> greater moral argument in mind when they chose to block the street. It was
> an act of civil disobedience, and if someone had charged them with a public
> nuisance violation, they should have accepted it.  However, no one is
> arguing that the driver – who with forethought and malice, drove her
> vehicle into a crowd of stationary pedestrians – was engaged in an act of
> civil disobedience. Her act was not civil; it was only disobedient. She
> placed people at great risk of bodily injury.
>
I would be interested to know what moral reasoning makes a cracked window
> worthy of heated public scorn, while someone deliberately endangering the
> lives of children does not even get a mention – not by Reitz, the N-G, or
> the online commenters. And, in case we lose sight of this fact, the window
> was only cracked when the driver chose to do something gravely illegal.
>


Let me start by saying that the above point of view was expressed in the
Circle and was part of the discussion. As I said earlier, one of the goals
of the Circle is for all involved to understand the intentions and
motivations of everyone else.  It would not be appropriate for me to speak
for others and I won't do so, but I will say that both students and the
driver (and the school principal) spoke at length about what they were
thinking when they each did what they did and my sense is that everyone in
the room left the meeting feeling with a lot more trust and confidence
about everyone else's good intentions, as well as a greater appreciation
and empathy for the conditions that led to different parties making choices
that caused others harm.  That said, please don't take my word for it:
Almost everyone at the Circle was publicly identified and I think would be
willing to speak about their experience.







> Civil disobedience is an essential part of the history of justice in the
> U.S. and around the world. That we are willing to toss that principle into
> the ditch and talk about a piece of busted glass instead portends deep
> moral confusion. Feels like the conversation about this has barely begun.
>
>
> http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2015-04-01/students-intentions-were-good-driver-difficult-situation.html
>
>
My experience of it was that the conversation was much broader and deeper
than busted glass. In fact, civil disobedience was explicitly discussed.
However, it is certainly the case that the conversation has barely begun.
I hope that those on this listserve find ways to continue it.  Indeed,
thank you, David, for initiating it here.

For my part, I'm happy to answer questions or otherwise engage in the
conversation, though of course I will not get into the specifics of who
said what.

Hope this is useful.

Mikhail

P.S.  I want to add one other thing, which is that Julia Rietz did not in
any way dictate or try to influence what this process was like. Once she
asked Elaine and me to run it, we did so in accordance to our best
understanding of what would be most restorative and most supportive to
those involved and the larger community, with no influence from Rietz or
anyone else.






> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-CommunityCourtwatch mailing list
> Discuss-CommunityCourtwatch at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss-communitycourtwatch
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20150402/4c8a47ec/attachment.html>