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

Thu Apr 2 21:06:36 EDT 2015

Thanks Mikhail. I don't mean to imply that the most vindictive should indeed be satisfied with the process, or that the process should have worked differently in order to satisfy them. It's revealing but not surprising that they would be satisfied only with guilt being assigned to the students. They continue to politicize the situation from the perspective of having power, or at least identifying with state authority. For them, RJ is a capitulation. Locavore I think appropriately politicizes the situation from the perspective of civil disobedience as a tactic in pursuit of social justice. The question regarding RCs or RJ is whether this approach and these communicative processes can address social justice issues in the context of asymmetrical power relations, which is the context in which civil disobedience emerges, as a challenge to those relations. But given the random nature of this incident, it was a tactic in search of a strategy; not a good context in which to clarify the power relations at work, in my view. Nevertheless, the question remains: In this teachable moment, what has been taught or learned? Not just about personal responsibility, but about political activism.
David Green 

     On Thursday, April 2, 2015 5:38 PM, Mikhail Lyubansky <lyubanskym at gmail.com> wrote:

 Thanks for that clarification, David. I saw the comment by Locavore on NG website but concluded that you were one and the same.  I'm sure your looks are stunning. I look forward to having the pleasure of a face-to-face meeting one day.  

You lost me, however, in the last sentence.  Why are you appalled that the RC process did not satisfy those who are most vindictive? It seems that you don't consider yourself as one of the vindictive, yet you are appalled that those who are vindictive were not satisfied...  I'm definitely missing something.

Mikhail Lyubansky, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign [http://www.psych.uiuc.edu/~lyubansk]
Blogger, Psychology Today: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/between-the-lines
Writer, OpEdNews: http://www.opednews.com/author/author18834.html
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 4:54 PM, David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com> wrote:

Thanks Mikhail for your response. I want to make it clear, because I unfortunately didn't when I posted the comment, that it was not my comment, but by "Locavore." If it was my own comment, I wouldn't have defined it as "excellent" in the subject line, since I don't like to be quite that blatantly self-complimentary, except about my looks. In any event, it provided, I think, the broader political perspective in which RCs can take place. News-Gazette comments sections are a small sample, of course, but I found it interesting and appalling that the RC approach did not in any way satisfy the most vindictive among the local punitive crowd. That's why I was gratified to see the comment that I posted. If "locavore" is reading this, thanks again. David Green 

     On Thursday, April 2, 2015 3:18 PM, Mikhail Lyubansky <lyubanskym at gmail.com> wrote:

 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/20150403/6041122c/attachment-0001.html>