|
The principles and values of restorative justice have been and are
being used very effectively in public and private schools. Restorative
conferences are used to reduce suspensions/expulsions and are effective
with routine discipline manners all the way to acts a violence. In
Colorado a few years ago there an ugly incident where a third grader was
making sexual advances at some of the girls in his class. Some of the
parents wanted to call the police and prosecute to the maximum extent of
the law. However, the Principal was well versed in restorative justice and
calmly suggested that the community needed was healing, not more wounds. A
conference was held and the young perpetrator learned first hand about how
his behavior had effected others.
Research is being done in British Columbia looking to support a
theory which says schools are safer when the principles of restorative
justice are used as the first option in discipline. Teachers are spending
more time on curriculum if minor conflicts are addressed and restored when
they occur, rather than allowing events to build. Early evidence suggests
that teachers are finding that they can easily cover required
curriculum and have time to do the circles and other community
building activities. The study is ongoing, and is being watched as a sign
of great hope for our public schools.
I've been asked if there are any good case studies of rj in public
schools. The answer is yes, kind of, but most of them are not written up.
I am going to offer one from Vermont that was big news when it occurred
two years ago (almost to the day). The conference had approximately 90
participants. It tested the strength of a community and caused "creative
tension" with the facilitators. I'm going to edit this case a little bit
because it is very long. If anyone wants the unedited version feel free to
ask.
The author and one of the Co-facilitators is Chris Dinnan, an
employee of the Vermont Department of Corrections. A side note is that
Chris is kind of a story himself. Somehow in his lifetime he went from
marching on Washington under the Black Flag of Anarchy to being regarded
as one of the most seasoned and reasonable voices of justice for the
Vermont DOC. Keep in mind this is one example, there are many others which
do not involve the level of outside government agencies. Though in some
ways that is the charm of this case.
TB
The Incident
On Tuesday, September 26, 2000, 14 varsity and 10 junior varsity soccer
players from a rural Vermont regional high school, along with the varsity
and junior varsity coaches, were on the bus coming home after a victorious
away game. They were halfway through the season and had just improved
their record to 4 wins – 4 losses. As darkness fell, several varsity
players diverted the coaches, who were sitting in the front of the bus,
and two junior varsity players were individually dragged to the back of
the bus and beaten by some of the other varsity players. They were kicked
and punched repeatedly. One boy ended up with a black eye, the other with
cleat marks on his back. Apparently, such incidents of hazing or
"initiation rites" had occurred over the years on various teams at this
high school but had never risen to this level of violence.
The Initial Response
School officials didn't find out about the attack until Wednesday, when
a parent of one of the victims contacted them. On Thursday, varsity
players arriving for a scheduled scrimmage were instead separated and
interviews were conducted by school officials to piece together the events
on the bus. Disciplinary action was taken against the 14 varsity players
who were on the bus, with the severity of the punishment depending on
their roles in the attack. The seven students who allegedly did anything
physical were suspended from school for different lengths of time. All 14
varsity players were suspended from participating in extracurricular
activities for six weeks. This mandate, based upon a relatively new hazing
policy adopted by the school district, effectively canceled the remaining
varsity soccer season. In addition, all 14 varsity players faced the
possibility of receiving civil citations from the Vermont State Police,
and several of the boys possibly faced criminal charges as well (for
access to recently passed Vermont legislation re: hazing, see www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2000/bills/passed/s%2D076.htm).
On Saturday, September 30, coverage of the incident hit the front page
of the regional daily newspaper and continued for almost two weeks
thereafter. Other newspapers statewide picked the story up shortly after
it broke locally. This is a good indication of the public nature of and
public interest in the incident and its aftermath. There had, in fact,
been a number of hazing incidents recently reported in Vermont at both the
college and high school levels which had received a great deal of media
coverage, including a spot on national television network news. The
coverage of this incident in the regional daily newspaper included ongoing
articles, an editorial piece from the newspaper’s editors, a number of
letters to the editors from community members, and even a "street talk"
section that featured five individuals’ pictures and responses to a
question about the school administration’s handling of the incident. The
coverage was generally favorable to the administration’s handling of the
incident.
About 40 community members attended a special meeting of the School
Board that was convened six days after the incident to hear from school
officials about how they were handling the situation. The principal gave a
full report to the Board and audience about what the school officials’
investigation had revealed. The beatings were apparently planned as part
of an initiation rite inflicted on younger players by older varsity team
members. The superintendent reportedly noted at the meeting that, "The
number one question I’ve heard is, ‘Where were the coaches?’" A number of
parents had become quite angry about how the incident was being handled.
In fact, one parent at the meeting circulated a petition calling on the
school to fire the head coach, and a number of people signed it. As it
worked out, such action was not necessary as the head coach resigned
shortly thereafter.
The Next Step
Just after the hazing incident was reported in Vermont newspapers, Dr.
Charles Johnson, the Safe Schools Coordinator with the Vermont Department
of Education, contacted the principal of the high school. Charles had an
established relationship with the school community as he had previously
facilitated a series of meetings with students, parents and teachers to
encourage civility in all aspects of school life. A meeting was arranged
with the principal and his staff to discuss the incident, the disciplinary
steps that had been taken, the disgruntled parent reactions and the
fragmenting, rippling effect that was taking place in the school and the
community. Charles suggested the use of restorative justice conferencing
as a method for bringing everyone together and reaching a conclusion that
would be acceptable to the entire community. The idea was well
received.
The victims and their parents were not satisfied with the suspensions
alone as an appropriate response to the incident. They had desired a
face-to-face meeting from the beginning. Charles had a meeting with the
victims and their families to hear what they were experiencing and whether
the conferencing idea might be acceptable to them. They were relieved that
finally something was being suggested that would help them communicate to
others what their sons and families were going through. They agreed to the
conferencing idea.
On October 10, an 18-point "Action Plan for Dealing with Issues of
Hazing" was developed by the school administration. The principal, vice
principals, guidance counselor and athletic director all worked together
to determine a course of action to follow in response to the incident. The
first step in this plan was to "continue to offer counseling and support
services to the two targets of the hazing assaults (and) provide (an)
opportunity for the two targets to meet in a supervised environment with
the varsity players who participated in the hazing assault."
One week later (three weeks after the incident), a memo was sent from
the superintendent of schools to the principal (with a copy to the school
board). The superintendent directed that the seven varsity players who had
been suspended must provide "verification from an appropriate counselor,
psychologist or psychiatrist that they have successfully participated in a
program of counseling that has specifically addressed issues related to
violence prevention, anger management, hazing and harassment." Until this
verification was received, they would not be permitted to "participate in
any extra-curricular or athletic activities or events sponsored by the
school." The superintendent went on to explain that, "If the students so
choose, these conditions may alternately be met by their successful
participation in the restorative justice program currently being
arranged by Dr. Charles Johnson of the Vermont Department of Education.
‘Successful participation’ means: (1) that the students actively and
voluntarily participate in the restorative justice process, (2) that
they follow through in a timely manner with any and all conditions and
agreements resulting from that program, and (3) that I receive
certification of successful completion from Dr. Johnson and/or the
designated restorative justice facilitator."
Pre-conference Preparation
Two days later, an organizational meeting to plan for the restorative
justice conference was held at the high school. This meeting included the
principal, two vice-principals, a guidance counselor, the athletic
director, Dr. Johnson and Chris Dinnan. Chris, who is a Community Resource
Coordinator with the Vermont Department of Corrections, became involved at
this point to assist in preparing the participants and, as it worked out,
to co-facilitate the conference. It was agreed that the conference should
be held as soon as possible. It was decided to announce it for Tuesday,
November 2, 2000 at 6:30 p.m. This would allow for only two weeks for
conference preparation. Everyone present agreed that the participants
would include the two coaches, the bus driver, school administration
officials and all soccer team members. The victims and the boys accused of
active hazing would be allowed up to three supporters as it was envisioned
that they would be more actively engaged during the conference, and the
other team members would be allowed up to two supporters. It was also
determined that the two coaches would not be actively engaged as the
incident was between players. There was initial discussion about the
seating arrangement since we realized we were looking at upwards of 80
participants.
The principal then sent out letters to all participants outlining the
process and the options as directed by the superintendent. He indicated
that the participants should expect to be contacted by Charles or Chris. A
variation of the same form letter was sent to the victims, the active
hazers, the passive hazers and to the other team members (junior varsity
players not victimized and the two varsity players not on the bus). A copy
of the superintendent’s memo was included with the letters to the active
hazers. While the four categories of letters were different, they also
contained some identical language that is included below:
The recent hazing incident that involved your son and other
members of the boys’ varsity and junior varsity soccer teams has left us
with many unresolved issues to deal with. While the initial response to
the hazing incident focused on ascertaining what happened and on dealing
with the immediate disciplinary consequences as outlined in school
policy and state law, our attention has now turned to restoring a sense
of community to the school. It is vital to the well-being of all of our
students, especially those who were in any way involved in the hazing,
to find a way to bring closure to the situation in such a manner that
all students are able to participate successfully and comfortably in all
aspects of school life.
"…While participation in this Restorative Justice Conference is
voluntary, we highly recommend that all involved students and their
families take this opportunity to bring closure to this situation in
what we believe will be a very positive and restorative manner.
"There are a number of advantages to participating in the Restorative
Justice Conference, including the following:
"The Restorative Conference will…
- provide an opportunity for all of the involved students to
express and discuss their feelings and concerns about the hazing
incident and the resulting actions taken by the school.
- allow victims, active participants and observers to face each
other on an equal basis as they strive to restore a sense of mutual
trust and respect.
- engender a feeling of community among the parents of the soccer
players.
- permit students to resolve the remaining disciplinary issues
resulting from this case.
- provide closure to the situation that enables the school
community to move on beyond the hazing incident while at the same
time setting the groundwork that will prevent future hazing
incidents from occurring.
"…I strongly encourage your son and you to participate in the
Restorative Justice Conference scheduled for Thursday, November 2. I
believe this process offers us the best opportunity to move our
school community forward."
Prior to the conference, there were a number of e-mail and telephone
communications between the facilitators and the school administration.
As co-facilitators, Charles and Chris began to develop a "creative
tension" which persisted throughout the pre-conference period. A number
of issues were worked through. For instance, the facilitators and school
administrators all agreed on who the participants should be but
disagreed on the issue of observers. It had been suggested that perhaps
local municipal and law enforcement officials, school board members,
student council representatives, etc., be invited to attend. Charles
felt that being as inclusive as possible would provide an education for
the observers, develop goodwill for the process and reduce the amount of
time and effort needed to explain what happened at the conference. Chris
suggested that observers should only be present if all conference
participants agreed. In the end, the sensitivities of the majority of
the participants were respected, and no observers were allowed. In fact,
a third facilitator was posted at the entrance with a checklist of names
to ensure that no one who was not invited (like the press, for instance)
would be in attendance.
All participants were afforded the opportunity for a pre-conference
face-to-face meeting with a facilitator or were given as much phone time
as was necessary to prepare them for the conference. Due to the number
of participants and the fact that the conference was slated to occur in
just two weeks, Chris recruited two other individuals trained in the
conferencing process to assist in this effort. Chris concentrated his
efforts on the victims, the active hazers and the parents of both, while
the two individuals he recruited contacted the coaches, the bus driver
and the other players (including the passive hazers) and their parents.
Charles was also in contact with many of the participants through
numerous telephone calls prior to the conference. 50 hours
altogether is a conservative estimate for the amount of time spent by
the four individuals preparing the participants. When meetings were
requested, they lasted between 1 – 2.5 hours. Telephone conversations
were also extensive in terms of time.
The Criminal Justice Aspect
Chris agreed to connect with the Vermont State Police to determine
the status of the case. The troopers had taken the case based on the
fact that the incident had occurred on the bus returning from an away
game outside of the town in which the high school is located. Sergeant
James Hogan, the investigating officer, was the key decision-maker in
the justice system but was away at training until three days prior to
the conference. Based upon his investigation, he would ultimately
determine how the case would proceed. Prior to Sergeant Hogan’s return,
Chris sent the 14 varsity players a report to prepare them for possible
scenarios. The following e-mail from Chris to Sergeant Hogan is included
in its entirety below, as it contains references to recently enacted
state policy re: restorative justice and contains the report which was
given to the 14 varsity boys who were on the bus and faced the
citations. Worth noting is that Sergeant Hogan had indicated to the
principal that the citations would be issued and that the active hazers
would be fined $500, while the passive hazers would be fined $2,000.
This issue of $500 versus $2,000 citations was the source of a good deal
of confusion and was dealt with in the report to the 14 varsity players
who were on the bus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full text of e-mail from Chris Dinnan to Sergeant Hogan (dated
10/30/00)
"Sergeant Hogan-
"I realize you were at training all last
week, but I am assuming you have received word (from Lieutenant
Stanton) about the Restorative Justice Conference which is being
convened re: the (high school) soccer team hazing incident. The
incident occurred on 9/26 on the bus back from an away soccer game.
The conference is scheduled for this coming Thursday, November 2, at
6:30 p.m. at (the high school).
"I am enclosing a report that
has been shared with the 14 varsity players who were on the bus.
There is a great deal of apprehension going in that what is said may
be used against them. In fact, some may not attend unless they are
reasonably assured that they can be comfortable speaking freely.
Ultimately, full participation would give this conference the most
potential to resolve this issue so that the community can begin to
heal. At this point, there is a tremendous amount of conflict in the
community. It has become a festering wound.
"My understanding
is that you will return to work on Tuesday, October 31. Please make
it a high priority to contact me by return e-mail or by giving me a
call. I believe it would be best for you (or a representative
Trooper) to attend, but only if you (or they) would be willing to
agree not to use the boys’ statements against them. This is the most
important issue we need to deal with. In some jurisdictions,
anything said in a conference such as this can not be used against a
participant, whereas in Vermont there is nothing on the books to
restrict this. There is, however, new legislation enacted during the
last session of the Legislature (coincidentally along with the
hazing statute) which reads:
* * * Beginning of Restorative
Justice; Amendments * * *
"Sec. 62. 28 V.S.A. § 2a is added
to read:
§ 2a. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
(a) State policy. It is the
policy of this state that principles of restorative justice be
included in shaping how the criminal justice system responds to
persons charged with or convicted of criminal offences. The policy
goal is a community response to a person's wrongdoing at its
earliest onset, and a type and intensity of sanction tailored to
each instance of wrongdoing. Policy objectives are to:
(1)
Resolve conflicts and disputes by means of a nonadversarial
community process.
(2) Repair damage caused by criminal acts to
communities in which they occur, and to address wrongs inflicted on
individual victims.
(3) Reduce the risk of an offender committing a more serious
crime in the future, that would require a more intensive and more
costly sanction, such as incarceration.
(b) Implementation. It is
the intent of the general assembly that law enforcement officials
develop and employ restorative justice approaches whenever feasible
and responsive to specific criminal acts, pursuant to sections 163
and 164 of Title 3, concerning court diversion, chapter 221 of Title
13, concerning sentencing, and the provisions of this title,
concerning persons in the custody of the commissioner of
corrections. It is the further intent of the general assembly that
such restorative justice programs be designed to encourage
participation by local community members, including victims, when
they so choose, as well as public officials, in holding offenders
accountable for damage caused to communities and victims, and in
restoring offenders to the law-abiding community, through
activities:
- Which require offenders to:
(A) acknowledge wrongdoing and
apologize to victims;
(B) make restitution for damage to the
victims, consistent with provisions of chapter 221 of Title 13 and
of this title;
(C) make reparation for damage to the community by
fulfilling a community service; and
(D) when relevant,
successfully complete treatment addressing the offense or other
underlying problematic behavior, or undertake academic or vocational
training or other self-improving activity.
- Which aid in the recovery of victims, recognizing that victims,
particularly of violent crime, often suffer lifelong effects and,
accordingly, must feel safe and involved in any program offered to
assist them.
- Which help in identifying the causes of crime and ways community
members and municipal and state government can reduce or prevent
crime in the future.
* * * End of Restorative Justice; Amendments * * *
"This legislation clearly states that the new policy relates to
how the criminal justice system responds to persons "charged with or
convicted of criminal offenses." Since the two targeted victims and
their parents are supportive of employing the restorative
methodology of "conferencing" in this case, however, I would hope
that we could work something out "pre-charge" before this conference
in order to encourage the greatest amount of participation.
"The report I sent to the 14 varsity players on the bus (and
their parents) is included below. It was the best I could do for
them without having had the opportunity to speak with you
first.
"Thanking you in advance for responding at your
earliest possible convenience,
Chris Dinnan
VT Dept. of
Corrections
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosure in e-mail to Sergeant Hogan…
(High School) Hazing Incident
Possible Scenarios for
Varsity Players on the Bus
Report from Chris Dinnan,
Conference Co-facilitator (10/26/00)
"In advance of the
restorative justice conference scheduled for Thursday, November 2,
2000, at (the high school), I have been attempting to establish the
possible scenarios within the justice system for the 14 varsity
soccer players on the bus (7 active and 7 passive hazers). Their
options within the school community have been clearly stated by (the
superintendent and the principal). At this point in the justice
system, they have not been formally charged with any civil or
criminal offense. Since the alleged offense occurred outside of (the
town), State Police Sergeant Jim Hogan has become the investigating
officer. Sergeant Hogan met with (the principal) and indicated to
(him) that 14 citations would be forthcoming. Sergeant Hogan has
been in New Hampshire all this week at training so I have been
unable to contact him personally. I have sent an e-mail to him. I
have also spoken to his supervising officer, Lieutenant Stanton, to
see what action is contemplated (and when). He is supportive of
employing the conferencing process to attempt to resolve this
situation.
"The new hazing law under which these boys may be
charged was enacted this past legislative session. 16 VSA Sec. 153
indicates that "a person who commits an unlawful act under this
subchapter shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than
$5000.00." At his meeting with (the principal), Sergeant Hogan
indicated that the 14 tickets would be in the amount of $500 for the
7 "active" hazers and $2000 for the 7 "passive" hazers. I have
obtained an "Informational Bulletin" from Dean Martin at the
Judicial Bureau which indicates that the waiver penalty for hazing
or soliciting hazing in a secondary school is $500 while the penalty
for "failing to prevent hazing" is $2000. He feels, and I agree,
that this latter category is probably meant for coaches or
administrators rather than for students. In fact, the specific
language of the statute is that it shall be unlawful to "knowingly
fail to take reasonable measures within the scope of the person’s
authority to prevent hazing" [16 VSA Sec. 152 (c), Italics are
mine]. Anne Winchester with the Legislative Council also agrees that
this was the intent of this language in the new
statute.
"Thus, it is reasonable to assume that, if tickets
are issued, all 14 students will be receiving the same $500
citation. Seven allegedly did "engage in hazing" and seven allegedly
did "solicit, direct, aid or attempt to aid, or abet another person
engaged in hazing" [16 VSA Sec. 152 (c)]. A real possibility is that
the tickets will not be issued. This is left to the discretion of
the investigating officer. The investigating officer is also able to
amend or dismiss the ticket after it has been issued. If the
citations are issued and the investigating officer decides against
dismissing or amending the tickets, the matter then goes to the
Judicial Bureau. The individual cited would then have three options:
plead not guilty (in which case a hearing would be scheduled), plead
guilty (and pay the fine), or plead "nolo contendre" (and pay the
fine). If determined innocent at the hearing, the individual would
obviously not pay any fine but if found guilty, might be subject to
a civil penalty up to $5000.
"I also have a call into the State’s Attorney’s Office as the
statute is clear that, "Nothing in this subchapter shall limit or
preclude a criminal prosecution or any criminal or civil action
based on any act that may constitute hazing." (16 VSA Sec. 154) The
Judicial Bureau deals solely with civil offenses (like traffic and
other ordinance violations, possession of malt beverages, etc.)
which deal with fines. There could also be criminal charges (such as
Simple Assault) filed by the State’s Attorney which would be dealt
with in Family Court (for those individuals charged as minors) or
District Court (for those individuals charged as adults). This would
all be contingent upon the State Police sending an affidavit to the
State’s Attorney’s Office, which they may or may not do in this
case.
"The question has been raised as to whether anything said in
the conference can be used against the alleged hazers in subsequent
criminal action. The short answer is, "Yes." However, the likelihood
that this would happen is so minimal that the more accurate answer
would be, "Yes, but it is almost certain that it will not be."
According to Jane Woodruff, Executive Director of the State’s
Attorneys and Sheriff’s Association, there is also the possibility
that Jim Mongeon, the State’s Attorney for Rutland County, could
issue a "grant of use immunity" for what is said at the conference.
This would exempt any statements from future use. Mr. Mongeon is on
vacation until next week so I will be unable to determine whether
this is a possibility until then. It could also be argued that
anything said could not be used against them because they had not
been advised of their Fifth Amendment rights, although they have not
been charged at this time. The bottom line is that it is an
understandable concern but that it is not, in fact, a huge issue.
Participants should feel that they can speak freely at the
conference.
"I will continue to clarify the situation up
until the conference takes place and, if necessary, afterwards. As
explained in detail above, the primary player in the justice system
at this point in time is Sergeant Jim Hogan of the Vermont State
Police. I have encouraged him via e-mail to attend the conference
and will follow up next week. I do believe it would be beneficial
for all alleged offenders to actively participate in the conference
in that it will be much less likely that citations will be issued
(and that a criminal affidavit will be forwarded to the State’s
Attorney’s Office) in the cases of those boys who participate. (The
principal) has indicated in his letters to the parents of the 14
boys involved that if they do choose to voluntarily participate in
the conference, ‘school and Vermont Department of Education
personnel will work with the State Police and courts to bring any
possible legal issues resulting from the hazing to a satisfactory
conclusion.’ I am confident that we will be able to do just
that."
End of 10/30/00 e-mail to Sergeant Hogan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon returning to the area, Sergeant Hogan made it clear in a meeting
with Chris that it had been his intent to issue the $500 citations.
Chris indicated to him that there was some feeling (in the school
administration and by the victims) that it would be best to issue the
citations and then dismiss them if appropriate action by the offenders
was taken. This would emphasize the seriousness of the offense and
provide an additional incentive to comply with the agreement. Sergeant
Hogan decided after this meeting to hold off on issuing the citations so
long as the victims and school administration were satisfied with the
outcome of the conference. He prepared a memo to Chris, which was
subsequently provided to the conference participants, to clarify his
position. His memo reads in part:
"…I believe involving the community and having the offenders
admit their part in an incident and how it affected them and the
victims is beneficial. I realize that this is a relatively new
concept and not fully understood by everyone, myself included.
However, I feel that as individuals and communities become more
involved and have a better understanding of the program this could
be used in a wide variety of ways.
"Having stated this, regarding the conference on 11/02 at (the
high school) concerning the hazing incident on 9/26/00, I want to
reiterate that my chief concern is for the victims and victims’
families. This was a serious incident and the offenders need to know
that their actions or non-action caused a lot of pain not only for
the victims and their families, but for the school and the
community.
"As was discussed at our meeting, it was my plan to issue hazing
tickets to the 14 individuals involved in the incident. This
determination was made from information I had gathered from the
school administration as well as from one of the parents of one of
the victims. After speaking with you… I learned that (the
conference) may be of more benefit to them than a simple ticket.
However, this is contingent upon the satisfaction of the victims,
their families and the school administration. If those parties are
agreeable to a solution…they deem appropriate and the offenders
complete (this agreement)… to all the parties’ satisfaction, then
there will be no tickets issued.
"I wish you well at the conference and sincerely hope a
resolution can be reached that will help ease the pain suffered by
the victims, their families, the school and the community caused by
the offenders. I look forward to hearing from you about the
conference and it’s outcome."
After the meeting between Chris and Sergeant Hogan (and before
receiving the memo referenced above), Chris sent a letter to the 14
varsity boys on the bus and their parents (with a copy to the victims
and their parents). It read in part:
"I have just returned from a meeting with Sergeant Jim Hogan of
the State Police, the investigating officer for the (high school)
hazing incident. I laid everything out to him in terms of the
restorative justice conference, which is planned for 6:30 p.m. on
Thursday, November 2, at (the high school). He considered the
options and has chosen not to issue the 14 citations, with the
possibility of later dismissing or amending them as a result of what
transpires during and/or after the conference. He is, however,
prepared to put in writing that no tickets will be issued and no
affidavit will be forwarded to the State's Attorney in the cases of
those boys who participate in the conferencing process to the
satisfaction of the victims and their parents. I will physically
pick this letter up (rather than rely on the mail) on Thursday
morning and will make copies available at the conference.
"Particularly with this development in mind, I would encourage
you all to attend and actively participate in the conference. Please
do not consider this an ultimatum, as I am personally in no position
to issue one. The very real possibility does exist, however, that if
you choose not to participate, a citation may be issued and criminal
action may be pursued. This is, quite simply, where things stand at
this point in the justice system."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Conference
A total of 91 participants and three facilitators attended the
conference, which began shortly after 6:30 p.m. (to accommodate some
latecomers) and lasted for over three hours. 28 of 35 total soccer team
members, including the 14 varsity players charged with hazing, attended
with their supporters. The junior varsity coach, the bus driver, the
superintendent and five school administrators attended. The varsity
coach, who as noted previously resigned shortly after the incident, had
been invited but chose not to attend. A single cordless hand-held
microphone was passed back-and-forth between the facilitator and the one
person speaking. The microphone served as a "talking stick" during the
conference. No one spoke except for the person holding the microphone
during the entire course of the conference.
The final seating arrangement was a cause for considerable dialogue
and discussion right up until 48 hours prior to the conference. It was
clear from the outset that the number of participants precluded forming
one large circle. One option that was suggested by Chris was to create
two concentric circles. The "inner circle" would consist of the primary
hazers and their supporters along with the victims and their supporters.
The victim supporters would include the principal and one of the
vice-principals, as the victims and their parents had requested these
two individuals. The "outer circle" would consist of other affected
parties - the bus driver, the two coaches on the bus, administration
officials not requested by the victims as inner circle supporters and
the other soccer team members and their supporters. The inner circle
participants would be actively involved in the scripted Real Justice
process throughout, while the outer circle participants would be brought
in only toward the end of the process. Charles, on the other hand, had
seen research on large group conferences that suggested the use of a "V
format" as a more useful seating arrangement. The later arrangement was
ultimately used.
Another issue that was resolved less than 48 hours before the
conference concerned the seven varsity players who were on the bus but
did not physically take part in the assault. As previously noted, it was
the seven boys who allegedly did something physical during the incident
who were suspended. The others knew the hazing was happening and did
nothing to stop it. Under the recently enacted Vermont statute (also
referenced previously), all 14 were equally guilty. When the concentric
circle model was being considered, it was envisioned that the seven
"passive hazers" would sit in the outer circle and take a less active
role in the conference. In the final seating arrangement, however, they
were up front and actively involved. Unfortunately, this was a surprise
to them. One reason for doing this was that there was some indication
that one or more of the passive hazers were more active during the
incident than had been originally determined.
The "creative tension" between Charles and Chris became particularly
tense at this point in time They discussed delaying the conference to
"re-prepare" the participants but, in the end, agreed to proceed on
schedule. After all, it was the eleventh hour and rescheduling the event
would have been difficult. An effort was made to inform participants
that the seating arrangement and script might be altered, but that the
process would be essentially the same. It was not logistically possible
to contact all participants.
Perhaps the tension increased significantly at this point because
Charles became particularly creative in his approach. Conferencing is,
in fact, a very pliable, multi-faceted process that is used in many
different forms in many different venues. Chris’ experience had been in
the application of conferencing in the criminal justice area, while
Charles’ interest was to explore applications in public school settings.
The tension between Charles and Chris may very well have been the
natural result of a corrections and an educational professional teaming
up to produce a conference such as this. The incident itself demanded a
response from both "worlds" and both parties were, in the end, able to
resolve the issues in order to accommodate both cultures. Our goals were
the same - to address the needs of the victims, to hold the offenders
accountable for what they had done, and to assist the school and greater
community to begin a process of healing from the damage which resulted
from this incident.
The following diagram represents the final seating arrangement at the
conference. The third facilitator shown helped in the preparation
effort, checked in participants at the door and helped with refreshments
after the conference. (The following sign was posted in plain view of
everyone attending the conference.)
Restorative Justice Signposts
We are working toward restorative justice when we
- …focus on the harms of wrongdoing more than the rules that have
been broken;
- …show equal concern and commitment to victims and offenders,
involving both in the process of justice;
- …work toward the restoration of victims, empowering them and
responding to their needs as they see them;
- …support offenders while encouraging them to accept and carry out
their obligations;
- …recognize that while obligations may be difficult for offenders,
they should not be intended as harms, and they must be achievable;
- …provide opportunities for dialogue, direct or indirect, between
victims and offenders as appropriate;
- …involve and empower the affected community through the justice
process, and increase its capacity to recognize and respond to
community bases of crime;
- …encourage collaboration and reintegration, rather than coercion
and isolation;
- …give attention to the unintended consequences of our actions and
programs; and
- …show respect to all parties, including victims, offenders, and
justice colleagues.
Crime wounds… Justice heals.
Drawn from Kaleidoscope of Justice and "Restorative
Justice Signposts" by Harry Mika and Howard Zehr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the Conference
All 14 varsity boys who had been on the bus had signed the
conferencing agreement, which stressed activities to prevent future
hazing incidents. The father of one of the victims sent the following
e-mail out the evening of the conference to friends and supporters. He
has agreed to make it public on the condition that it be printed in its
entirety. Only names have been omitted, as they have been in this entire
report. The e-mail includes the 5-point signed agreement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning of e-mail from a parent of one of the victims
"Dear Family & Friends: Well, after what seems like an
eternity (a couple of weeks?) of meetings, planning, negotiations,
behind-the-scenes string pulling, and a lot of angst, we finally got
our Restorative Justice conference tonight (6:30 to nearly
10:00).
"We estimated that most of the junior varsity team and their
parents, ALL 14 members of the varsity (including the 'evil seven')
and their parents, the 5 or 6 relevant school administrators, (the
two victims), and three facilitators were in attendance -- a total
of nearly 90 people. We met in a 'triangle' in the gym: (the
victims) and their parents on one side (single row), seven 'actively
involved' varsity players 'opposite' us, with their parents behind
them in two rows; two facilitators at the 'hinge' between these two
sides, and all the rest of the passive participants and families
forming the large/multi-row 'end' of the triangle. Sometime we can
get specific/detailed about the process, the order of presentations,
the 'scripted-ness' of the process, etc. etc. if you are interested.
The essential thing is that every 'offender,' 'victim,' 'victim
supporter', (us), and 'offender supporter' was asked a series of
questions and could respond at whatever length they felt
appropriate. [I, for example, was allowed to say that I was
physically sick as a result of the anger I felt for these boys, and
that they should consider themselves lucky that they had not picked
on a boy whose parent was a psychopath; I then told them that I had
been advised, variously, to sue them, expel them from school, treat
them as criminals and file charges, and/or abandon the legal process
and just beat them. Instead, we chose this process of community
healing....].
"This led, in turn, to the question: 'What do you think are the
major issues to be addressed?' And finally, 'What are your
suggestions for what these boys can do to address these issues?'
Some other suggestions were filed more specifically under a category
of what the administrators could take responsibility for.
"Bottom line was that (the two victims) got their fundamental
request(s) met: All the offending players and by-standers showed up
and had to acknowledge their role in, and feelings about, what
happened on that bus -- and do so in front of a large group of
pretty unsympathetic people (I was really kind of stunned at the
level of dismay and trauma on the part of the parents of the
offenders... interesting). (The two victims) also emphasized that
what they wanted as a result of this process was remorse on the part
of the other players, and respect and civility in the hallways and
around school -- including being greeted normally and ensuring that
the hall talk about what actually transpired was accurate. There was
discussion about what this meant, and how the players could live up
to that. Also players let them know that they were already making
sure that the 'real' story was making the rounds and that no one was
blaming the victims for the craziness and the ensuing penalties.
"The resulting "Agreement" is a kind of gentleman's agreement
that everyone in attendance could live with, the administration will
implement with them, and all 14 varsity players signed. There are 5
action items (details will be fleshed out later):
"We agree to show respect and civility to (the two victims)
in future daily activities at school.
"We agree to participate in an activity at all five
elementary schools [that feed (the high school)] and at (the)
Middle School to educate younger students about hazing in order
to prevent such activity from occurring again in the
future.
"We agree to work with the School Board Policy Committee in
the revision and further development of the Hazing Policy.
"We agree to participate in future 'team building' activities.
"We agree to work with the administration in the development
of a team captain leadership program.
"This might not seem like a lot when you are sitting there
reading this, but the fact that everybody was in one place, could
see each other's faces, and express their fairly raw emotions was
pretty impressive -- and then on top of it to come up with
constructive ideas we could agree on was more so. We know going in
that we were trading off some things for others (i.e., I had to
leave the 'vindictive stick' in the car; on the other hand, those
boys ate a bunch of humiliation burgers tonight).
"So now I am going to go downstairs and have a beer. Thanks for
all your positive energy -- it really helped us [and (my son) even
said so as part of his several very articulate opportunities to
speak....]."
End of e-mail from a parent of one of the victims
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortly after the conference, Chris sent the following letter to
State Police Sergeant Jim Hogan:
"I am enclosing a copy of the Conference Agreement which was
generated as a result of the Restorative Justice Conference held on
November 2 at (the high school) re: the soccer team hazing incident
of September 26. As you can see, all 14 "active" and "passive"
hazers attended the conference and signed the agreement. A total of
91 participants and three facilitators attended the conference,
which lasted for over three hours.
"In your memo of 11/1/00, you indicated that the hazing citations
would not be issued ‘contingent upon the satisfaction of the
victims, their families and the school administration.’ I can only
attest to the fact that all 14 attended, participated in the
conference and signed the agreement. There were varying levels of
remorse expressed and clearly not all of the boys offered a sincere
apology or admitted exactly what part they played in the incident.
It remains to be seen whether they all live up to the agreement. At
the very least, the conference gave the victims and their parents an
opportunity to express their anger and disappointment and gave the
offenders and their parents the opportunity to express their
feelings as well. I sincerely hope that this was a positive
intervention and that all participants were reasonably satisfied
with the outcome.
"If you would like to contact me for further information or
input, feel free to call or e-mail me. I would also encourage you to
contact the victims and the school administration to assess their
satisfaction with the process.
|
