As the academic year unwinds, college administrators across the country
anxiously await the inevitable bad news from their campus safety
departments. In addition to relatively minor infractions of campus
rules and regulations, there will be binge drinking, the plagiarizing
of papers, and often much worse, such as acts of physical and sexual
violence. It is clear that students who commit serious and violent
criminal offenses must be expelled, for the safety and well-being of
all. But what of the majority who commit lesser violations of campus
or criminal codes? Are we using the best approaches to hold such
students accountable for their actions and to meet the needs of harmed
parties and the campus community?
Though colleges and universities are generally viewed as
forward-thinking, even experimental, campus judicial responses
generally rely on uncreative, cookie-cutter sanctions. Judicial
officers are overly cautious in response to liability concerns,
outcomes are often dissatisfying to victims and offenders in the
process, and the system has been unable to change campus cultures
dominated by partying. Campus judicial responses are lagging behind the
criminal and juvenile justice systems in our society in using new,
effective strategies. College campuses are ideal places to develop and
test such strategies, but so far our institutions of higher learning
have largely stayed out of the loop on this matter.
"Restorative justice" is a new response to offending behavior and the
approach has a proven track record in criminal and juvenile justice
cases. Not only does it reduce recidivism, but it is widely perceived
by offenders and victims as fair and better able to meet their
emotional and material needs than traditional retributive responses.
"Restorative justice" is a new response to offending behavior and the
approach has a proven track record in criminal and juvenile justice
cases. Not only does it reduce recidivism, but it is widely perceived
by offenders and victims as fair and better able to meet their
emotional and material needs than traditional retributive responses.
Restorative justice approaches to student misconduct are a promising
tool that liberal arts colleges such as Skidmore College and large
public institutions like the University of Colorado are using
effectively to change campus culture.
Restorative approaches call upon offenders, victims, and community
members to participate in the decision-making process following a
campus violation. Through open dialogue, each participant comes to
understand the full impact of the offense, educating the offender about
the consequences of his or her behavior. This alone is a powerful
device for eliciting sincere expressions of remorse and commitments to
right the wrong. Articulating the harm in detail also paves the way for
creation of a restorative agreement—a list of tasks tailored to repair
the harm and rebuild the community’s confidence in the offender.
Typically, such tasks include apology letters, further research on the
impact of the harm, restitution, community service that is linked to
the offense, and activities that better integrate the offender into the
campus community. At Skidmore College, students cannot register for the
next semester’s classes until their restorative agreements are
completed. This is a direct message that it is up to the offenders to
take responsibility not only for their prior misconduct, but also for
their future education.
Three cases help to illustrate this approach, drawn from a variety of
institutions nationally. The first involved a group of athletes that
stole and made use of disabled parking placards. The incident generated
significant ire among the disabled community. A restorative conference
was held with the athletes and affected parties including disabled
faculty and students. The facilitated dialogue enabled the athletes to
learn the impact of their behavior and reduce the tension between these
groups. While the athletes took responsibility for their behavior in
several ways, it is notable that a major component of the restorative
agreement was a collaboration with educational goals. The athletes and
disabled members of the campus community agreed to co-produce a video
about disability issues and to present workshops during first year
student orientation.
Later, when the case reached
the criminal court, the prosecutor and judge were impressed that the
campus obligations were more onerous than the fine and probation they
intended to impose. Restorative justice, they realized, was not soft on crime.
The second case was a response to a theft by a drunken student. Walking
home from a bar, a student stole a public art object that was part of a
citywide project of the local arts council. Participating in the
restorative dialogue was the student the local artist, the store owner
who sponsored the artist, and the director of the city arts council.
Each was able to express how he or she was affected by the theft. By
the end of the meeting, the offender committed to completing 100 hours
of community service at the arts council, paying the costs of repairing
the artwork, helping write a guide to proper conduct for students
living off-campus, completing an alcohol use assessment, and organizing
an alcohol-free social event on campus. Later, when the case reached
the criminal court, the prosecutor and judge were impressed that the
campus obligations were more onerous than the fine and probation they
intended to impose. Restorative justice, they realized, was not soft on crime.
The third illustrates the use of restorative justice in an academic
case, highlighting how the approach is particularly relevant to the
educational setting. Here, a student plagiarized a paper, and appeared
before a restorative panel to discuss the harmful consequences and
create a plan of action. During the discussion the student learned
about the disappointment and sense of betrayal expressed by her
professor. The panel members were able to learn about the student’s
lack of confidence in her ability to write a "college-level paper." The
group agreed to a restorative contract that included several items:
rewriting the paper to demonstrate a proper use of sources, an apology
to the professor, and a presentation to the campus community about
academic integrity and how to protect it.
Such examples illustrate the educational nature of the restorative
approach, rather than having the response be simply punitive. Students
are expected to reflect on the consequences of their actions. They are
asked to take active responsibility for making amends. They must
demonstrate their ability to be prosocial members of the community.
With such an approach, there is rarely a need to suspend students for
their misconduct because the response is sufficiently demanding and
highly supervised. Students are not let off the hook, but they are not
ostracized either. Most often, the best place for them is on campus,
facing the problem directly.
Campuses can do much more than cut and paste the standard issue
disciplinary code. Already, job ads for campus judicial officers are
calling for backgrounds in restorative justice, and this is a good
sign. Now, all we need are the programs for them to run.
David R. Karp is an associate professor of sociology and director of the
Law and Society Program at Skidmore College.
