On Restorative Justice (Somewhat Hypothetically)

I've previously spoken on restorative justice (mostly on Facebook; maybe I'll hunt for links and come back to add them some other time; after 3600 words, I'm spent for now). Today I felt spontaneously moved to expound on this in longer form.

If a conflict arose in my own community, this is the route I would encourage us to take; restorative justice is often considered superior in specific contexts because it actively repairs harm and reintegrates offenders, whereas retributive justice focuses primarily on punishment and isolation.

I'll take it one step further: active repair must not only be utilized in times of difficulty or when members are isolated, but also as a modus operandi for quotidian affairs — that is, an ounce of preventative care is surely worth thousands of dollars of remedial cure. If the culture is already one of good relations, it should be easier to recover from mistakes when (not "if"!!) they are made.

I will here reiterate that it takes full buy-in from all participants, which includes bringing all concerns and feelings to the table with full honesty. To the best of everyone's ability, we must challenge our tendencies to mask what is going on underneath or full resolution will never occur. Nobody should ever be forced into a position of participating "to keep peace"; otherwise, in my experience, it will likely come apart at the reintegration stage, following the restorative justice circle and any agreed-upon resolutions are negotiated, where folks who are to be reintegrated to the community make efforts to reconnect. I'll refrain at this moment from adding further comment on my experiences with that, specifically, and simply underscore that all participants must do so voluntarily — any one person's unwillingness to resolve conflict is cause for concern and, in my opinion, should be explored and addressed before participating in the circle 1:1 with a mediator or professional counselor, if possible.

If leadership is unwilling to resolve conflict, this is, of course, much more serious cause for concern. I believe firmly that leadership, especially of a nonprofit organization of volunteers and pay-to-play membership, is an act of stewardship. The moment a leader loses sight of who they are serving and what their needs are, or put themself first to be served, they are no longer leading, but executing from ego. If one's personal needs conflict with being in a position of leadership, one has no business being in such a position of trust.

Now, I do happen to find myself in such a community, a singing ensemble that is one of several that operate independently (save for occasional performances where all participate) under an existing 501(c)3 nonprofit. How convenient!

There currently does not exist any formal (i.e., included in the forming/governing documentation or bylaws) process for conflict resolution. Prior to my joining, this fact contributed directly to the termination of membership from persons for whom conflict was never resolved after they were made to feel isolated from the community. It therefore remains in our best interest to consider implementing such a process — especially as almost occurred, since I have joined (though it was not my discovery), over the performability of a particular piece in the repertoire that we decided should never be sung by anyone, much less an ensemble of character and integrity.

The resolution of that conflict required heavy dialogue outside of rehearsal and one full rehearsal dedicated to a live community discussion. As far as I can tell, nine months later, the fabric of our community remains intact and our numbers have grown; part of my interest in these dynamics include determining how to ensure that all persons involved feel satisfied in not only that, but how the conflict was resolved. While only one member that took active role in the dialogue surrounding problematic repertoire has not returned to rehearsals – and I am of the understanding that life/work conflicts were the determining factor in this — it still remains of interest to me how to prevent the community/"third-place environment" bond from being deprioritized when push comes to shove.

Or: it remains of interest to me how to make it less likely that any member's participation in a given community be sacrificed when resources are scarce, so that they lean in to the community instead of more easily finding their way out of it.

I think restorative justice is the way, as there is a growing body of research suggesting that one can repair from bad experiences on one's own to an extent, but to whatever extent that harm was done by another person, healing can only take place interpersonally. By contrast, punishing a person and releasing them back into an environment unsupported leads to recidivism – whether we're talking actual crime, where that term is most often used, or as it regards communal or interpersonal conflict or estrangement, which our nervous systems ALSO clock as heavy damage. Woof.

So let's unpack ways this might unfold.

Let's – hypothetically – say that this ensemble is not just one of several under a nonprofit, but participates in a more complex hierarchical structure involving international- and regional-level leadership. Informing all possible levels of leadership up that chain of jurisdiction would be a positive contribution to the collective life of all communities within the system, because had a restorative justice process existed already, then developing, implementing, and reporting on such a process would be unnecessary. It can only be regarded as a positive contribution to the larger system if the top of the system then uses this model as the basis of a universally-approved process to which all ensembles/chapters are able to refer and benefit from in order to resolve their own conflicts.

To be abundantly clear: the underlying principle of this action would be to disseminate the utility of and guides for the restorative justice process. If any members of the international- or regional-level leadership remain unaware of this, it will be impossible for them to make informed contributions to the managing boards that make decisions that are then be implemented across the organization. To withhold this knowledge from upper leadership would be to directly prevent or intentionally delay progress from being made, and therefore would not be acting in good faith. Justice must not be allowed to be dispersed only when inconvenient to do otherwise, but desired for all persons at all times.

Of course, building a culture on pursuing behaviors and communication grounded in honoring our own and others’ dignity, and avoiding behaviors and communication that do not, takes some doing, especially if, like most (hypothetical) nonprofit groups or performing ensembles, most things ran along fine without much structure or oversight until suddenly one day they weren't.

So let's talk about what dignified communication is, and what that isn't.

Communicating with dignity is a two-way process that requires folks to use respectful language, active listening, and appropriate body language to ensure others feel heard, valued, and in control of their own autonomy. This allows people can make informed choices when responding, avoiding jargon, stereotypes, or language that might belittle or stigmatize. Key elements include respecting autonomy by involving individuals in decision-making, using non-judgmental language (e.g., "I understand this is challenging" instead of "you should know better"), and adapting communication as best as possible for those with cognitive impairments, sensory losses, or language barriers through tools like pictures, plain English, or interpreters if the need for such tools are identified. Effective dignity-promoting communication also encompasses empathy and transparency, where individuals validate feelings, explain themselves clearly, and create safe spaces for others to express concerns or make complaints without fear.

Examples of dignity-centered communication include asking how a person prefers to be addressed, offering choices through various aids for those with learning difficulties, differing abilities that limit regular participation, or disabilities as necessary, and engaging in open, honest conversations during conflict to honor individual wishes and reduce isolation. Such behavior is not only reflective of human rights but also improves interpersonal engagement, reduces anxiety, and fosters trust between one another.

Communicating criticisms of behavior or actions is dignified because communicating how someone's behavior impacts us gives us the ability to reconcile together and move on, and we can only reconcile what is brought up (read: avoiding identifying or communicating one's feelings does nobody any favors). Criticizing a person's character is not dignified because it makes a permanent or unchangeable fact out of behavior in order to shame someone.

It is also not rooted in dignity to use derogatory tones, to speak for others, to ignore input, to actively dismiss another person's bid to communicate, or employing language that implies negative stereotypes based on disability, age, or identity (for instance, misgendering a person). Correcting, "calling in," or redirecting such undignified behavior ought to be done in an educative, non-shaming way, as framed in this guide — and, in turn, these corrections ought to be received with humility and care.

Understandably, not all conflicts are particularly complicated or heavy, or require full-community participation in the resolution thereof. All parties involved in a conflict would initially escalate concerns privately––with invitations to dialogue and to work through the concerns. Dialogue will be sought as a first step and will seek outside support where needed — that is, if resolution is not reached privately and those involved reach an impasse, or if one party resorts to behaviors not rooted in dignity as described above.

The next actionable step would be to include other persons who would be affected by extension, that is, the rest of the community, followed by an unbiased 3rd party, ideally one familiar with/trained in mediating via restorative justice. There are a few reasons for this: first, it should be the community's goal to resolve their own conflicts, that the fabric of said community remains resilient to upset through strong interpersonal bonds; individual member satisfaction in ensemble performance depends on communal participation/each individual person showing up, so any rift in the community is of everyone's interest to resolve; unbiased restorative justice mediators can be expensive (although most communities of this nature are required to carry insurance to protect the interests and longevity of the institution). Additionally, this gives the opportunity for other members of the community to voice related concerns or conflicts that, without knowledge of similar conflicts, may not otherwise be identified as a pattern. Conversely, any perceived patterns can be corroborated or refuted when all members are together. When we all take ownership of the health of our connections, things can be worked out long before adverse action is necessary.

Adverse actions, including public disparagement or shaming whether in person or in written communications, as well as formal withdrawals of permission for folks to participate in community-sponsored events or initiatives (i.e., "banning" a person), will be pursued only after dialogue has been exhausted.

Makes sense — we wouldn't want to remove folks out of hand without making every effort to be accountable for and repair, in earnest, our part in it.

Right?

We need to keep all the people we can involve in our nonprofit communities or they eventually cease to exist — both the nonprofits and, often, the communities built around them. And because we recognize how the loss of any member, for any reason, impacts the whole, why wouldn't we try to exhaust every option seeking to repair a relationship, or at the very least earnestly moving forward in a way that future conflicts are precluded from rupturing so severely?

And because the escalation of dialogue necessitates community involvement, there can never be a situation in which a member of leadership, or even an entire managing board, can remove a member or prohibit someone from attending public events without the membership's knowledge. In order for the community to be informed of such events taking place, any person subjected to such treatment would have to be identified by name. If by some tragic mistake this managed to happen to someone AND their name or situation were kept vague enough to keep membership from knowing — well, first, the absolute first step in repairing harm would be full forthcoming transparency about who was banned and why.

By "full forthcoming transparency," I mean that the complete information is freely given in good faith that members of the community might check in on someone suddenly removed from the community and prohibited from coming anywhere near it, so that care can be extended on an individual level even if the given person isn't a good fit for the community as a whole.

Even in the case that a resolution is not reached, this is important for everyone to move forward. People who are themselves isolated out of communities aside for a moment, remaining members of communities that don't know why such a person left without saying so may assume the person simply wanted to, which obfuscates the truth of the situation — that the community was not involved in considering whether a person's actions are worthy of forcibly removing said person, and could not consent to any power doing so in secret — and contributes to the dissolution of otherwise viable relationships. I suppose it WOULD be rather worse if both the name of the offending party were excluded and the reasons given for their ban were missing or misrepresented vital information…that might be a reason for remaining membership's concern (see above re: stewardship and generally removing one's personal feelings from the leadership process). In any case, full transparency and honesty is required for community health and everyone moving on.

Suppose a person once excommunicated came to fully engage in this process and reached agreements with leadership regarding the above, including any newly crafted and disseminated documents that explicitly outline expectations or norms for interactions and behaviors between and among guests and community members––i.e. “what you can expect from us and what we expect from you.” (Nota bene: it would be good for this document to live on the website or to be circulated when advance tickets are purchased. In person, guests could scan a QR code that links to the document. It would be further good if the onus of bearing this out were promptly taken up by leadership of its own volition to complete this task, before tacitly agreeing to do so and burdening the person harmed with reminding leadership to do it a full three years after the fact!) It would be agreed that it is the responsibility of all parties to uphold these expectations and norms and to seek support if doing so becomes challenging. Individuals, including leadership, are responsible for the impacts of their behaviors on others and will take steps to repair if found to have done harm.

This means if any person reneges on the agreements, including treating people with enough dignity to receive and engage with their concerns rather than dismissing, ignoring, or denying them, it's back to square one. Dialogue, both informal and with a paper trail if escalation is necessary. If ignored or dismissed or otherwise treated in an undignified way, seek additional support — meaning, other people who are not currently involved that may help. This necessarily means telling other people: INITIALLY parties will seek to resolve concerns privately, but if that doesn't work and all sides truly wish for resolution, nobody gets to give up, call it quits, or sweep it under the rug. Not without exhausting all possible help and involving additional persons who ultimately will be impacted by the fallout, one way or another.

I would imagine that someone excommunicated from the community would have little choice than to seek support from remaining membership if leadership were not amenable in so doing.

I could also imagine that if remaining membership remained silent on the issue, or —hypothetically — if leadership sought to ensure the silence of the person harmed, the best that person could make of that situation would be to (a) share their experience that it hopefully never happens to anyone again, either by making sure interested individuals were aware or by making such knowledge available (either to all levels of upper leadership or publicly, whichever), because it's clear that nobody involved feels similarly, and (b) encourage and promote ideals that would encourage likeminded persons to connect and form a better-fitting community that is altogether separate.

In such a case, shaming anyone wouldn't be necessary, or even a viable means to an end. While it may be easy to conflate criticism of behavior with criticism of a person, because a person is ultimately responsible for their own behavior, one thing remains true: we cannot change what things happened in the past, but people can always change. People can always choose to try differently, if they are willing. We can learn from our mistakes if — and only if — we take the time to truly understand them, to acknowledge them to ourselves and to those harmed, and then be accountable to taking action both to repair harm and so that we don't make the same mistakes again. So that we don't run the risk of hurting someone in that way again. So that everyone in our collective communities are better off as a result of our having taken proactive measures to repair and ensure the continuation of our relationships and our (oft inadequately-funded) endeavors.

Upon reaching a resolution of the above, which literally requires drafting the agreements, responding with feedback to amend the wording if necessary until everyone is satisfied, replies in the affirmative, and beginning to carry out the above in earnest, leadership would then draft a brief communication to the community about the change in the excommunicated member's status in the community will be shared to inform anyone who wasn't already involved — though, again, with the added safeguard of community involvement at the point that conflict escalates beyond private attempts to resolve, this communication should come as a formality expected by everyone paying attention thus far. Again, to be explicit, this announcement should include the formerly-banned-person's name, especially if the first announcement that initially banned this person…didn't name them…for whatever reason. Don't know why that would be, but let's just say that that little detail needed to be cleaned up.

In this extended hypothetical situation, and I would argue most situations in which someone is systematically edged out by individuals having a series of bad days, the message is simple:

"Specific Name was banned from our community on XYZ date for reasons stated that were incomplete and, in part, misrepresented [,when in truth, ABC actually happened instead^]. Without a formal process to resolve conflict that respects each member of the community as well as honoring the impact that each member has on the community, many of you may be unaware that this even happened and therefore could not consent nor object to Specific Name's removal. In order to successfully repair harm, done both initially and during the time since these agreements were made yet not fulfilled, we are sharing these original agreements as well as information about the restorative justice process with you and with regional/district/international leadership because having now finally resolved this conflict we believe that making the process available to the rest of our organization is a positive step both in repairing the harm done to Specific Name and in participation with the larger community that all may benefit from it.

Effective immediately, the request for Specific Name not to attend public events hosted by our community is withdrawn. Please welcome them at events, encourage their participation, and remind them that, when they are ready, you would love if they rejoined."

That's it. Just account for what happened and make it clear that it won't happen to anyone else because we have something to refer to now that will help us to do better in the future lest we forget. Wow.

And you know what? I bet that any narrative that might have otherwise ended "Yeah, they just left all those agreements unfinished, what a bummer" would just, like, automagically morph into hearty recognition of a group of people who learned from a crappy situation, learned to do better, and acted as international leaders of a sea change that betters the entire organization.

Who wouldn't absolutely LOVE that redemption story? WHO COULD DENY HAVING SUCH STRONG POSITIVE FEELINGS FOR SEEING THESE CHARACTER ARCS PLAY OUT??!

Personal growth and interpersonal repair isn't a zero-sum game, and being accountable doesn't mean admitting you're a shitty person — rather, it is admitting you are a very good person who sometimes makes the wrong choice and has the ability to learn and adapt and the willingness to do better by other people once they know better.

I am truly, deeply sad for anyone that has not come to understand the depth of quality, committed relationships that can only result from working out deep conflict in earnest with a dedication to seeing everyone's needs truly met.

Anyway, that's what my brain was up to this morning.

^ let's just hypothetically say that the reason was perhaps that leadership did not appreciate that Specific Name insisted on waiting for leadership to complete Step 1 of the 3-step process (a chorus-wide vote) before themself engaging with Step 2 (a 1:1 with the mediator) to ensure their own interpersonal safety, and was thus banned in retaliation

hypothetically