You may have heard about Restorative Justice (RJ) on your Twitter or Instagram feed lately along with calls to defund and abolish police departments across the United States. RJ is a justice approach that views crime outside the parameters of lawbreaking alone—instead, RJ focuses on the harm caused by crime and creatively thinks about how victims of harm and perpetrators of harm can work towards resolution and healing. But what does this have to do with working as a tutor at the University Center for Writing-based Learning (UCWbL)? As tutors, we can view our UCWbL collaborative, community-based values through the lens of RJ to discover innovative ways to further integrate these values into our writing center work.
What is Restorative Justice?
As mentioned before, RJ views crime beyond the limits of the law. A full definition from the Centre for Justice and Reconciliation (2020a) says:
Restorative justice views crime as more than breaking the law – it also causes harm to people, relationships, and the community. So a just response must address those harms as well as the wrongdoing. If the parties are willing, the best way to do this is to help them meet to discuss those harms and how to bring about a resolution. Other approaches are available if they are unable or unwilling to meet. Sometimes those meetings lead to transformational changes in their lives.
This definition focuses on three major aspects: repairing harm, parties collaboratively discussing resolutions when possible, and transforming relationships on both personal and communal levels.
Historically, RJ has deep roots in multiple indigenous communal practices as well as in cultural practices from African, Asian, Celtic, Hebrew, and Arab communities (International Institute for Restorative Practices, 2020a). Although RJ has ancient roots, it has only gained institutional recognition in the United States in the past few decades. The ongoing popularization of the RJ movement in the U.S. stems from these cultural roots, faith communities, and modern prison abolitionists.
Since May 25th, 2020 when Minneapolis Police officer Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd, worldwide protests against police brutality and topics such as RJ and abolition have made their way further into mainstream media. Consequently, topics such as RJ have become a part of our daily lives. Because of RJ’s long and rich history, we can learn how to be better tutors from these practices by acknowledging and honoring their creative outlook on problem-solving. Additionally, when we make connections between healing as a process and writing as a process, we have the opportunity to view and utilize our UCWbL core values in new ways.
The Four Cornerposts of Restorative Justice and the Six Core Values of the UCWbL
The Centre for Justice and Reconciliation (2020a) creates the metaphor of RJ as a building with four cornerposts:
- Inclusion of all parties
- Encountering the other side
- Making amends for the harm
- Reintegration of the parties into their communities
Similarly, the UCWbL (2015) outlines aspects of its mission through six core values:
- Collaboration
- Diversity
- Reflection
- Respect
- Revision
- Transparency
In the subsequent sections, I will expand upon how UCWbL tutors can consider the four cornerposts of RJ when thinking about our core values. Additionally, I will provide examples of how this new outlook on UCWbL core values can be integrated into our day-to-day work. How can the work of indigenous folks, faith practices, and modern abolitionists inform and enlighten the way we tutor? What can we learn from those who have innovated creative and collaborative problem solving long before the advent of writing center work? How can we incorporate these ideas into the work we do with writers every day?
Before we jump in, I want to acknowledge that the information I present is merely a diluted version of centuries of work by RJ practitioners. I am by no means an expert in RJ but I do hope this analysis of basic RJ principles in conjunction with UCWbL core values pushes us to think more critically about our work as tutors. I encourage you to explore the references cited for additional resources that address RJ with more depth and nuance than possible within the constraints of this blog post.
Inclusion, Collaboration, and Diversity
Generally speaking, “inclusion of all parties” invites everyone involved to participate in the healing process. This allows for individual parties to pursue their interests in the healing process while also promoting flexibility to accept a variety of approaches to healing (Centre for Justice and Reconciliation, 2020d). This RJ practice directly relates to the UCWbL core values of collaboration and diversity because inclusion requires a diverse group of individuals to come together and collaboratively heal.
Typically, when someone causes harm and breaks a law, the two main parties involved are the person who caused the harm and some branch of the state (oftentimes, a prosecutor’s office). Through an RJ approach, however, a more diverse and inclusive group of parties come together to actively participate in the healing. Not only does the victim of the harm become an active participant in the process, but so do other support people such as family, friends, and members of the community.
Similar to how healing is a process, writing is a process as well—a process that oftentimes has multiple stakeholders. Understanding this inclusionary RJ practice can aid our tutoring by pushing us to look beyond the collaboration between writers and tutors, alone. Who else is present during an appointment? What influence does the institution have over particular genres? How do we balance the needs of these other parties while still honoring the writer? One way we can make this inclusion actionable in our tutoring practices is by explicitly asking the writer about their audience. It’s often easy to assume the audience based on certain genres—for example, the audience for a research paper may be a professor while the audience for a cover letter is most likely a hiring manager. However, there may be other audience members or stakeholders we as tutors can’t know about unless we ask. Maybe a research paper is for a class—but maybe it’s also for a scholarship or a graduate school writing sample. By acknowledging that writing is often influenced by voices beyond that of the writer’s and that audience cannot always be assumed based on factors such as genre, we can help writers better contextualize their writing.
Encountering, Respect, and Transparency
When possible, RJ encourages the victim of the harm and the perpetrator of the harm to encounter one another in a controlled environment. The Centre for Justice and Reconciliation (2020c) reminds us that these encounters rely on the elements of meeting, narrative, emotion, understanding, and agreement to help both parties move towards healing. Recognizing this restorative practice of encountering can help us as UCWbL tutors more deeply understand the function of respect and transparency as core values. Additionally, this RJ practice can help us think more critically about how we encounter writers in both physical and digital spaces.
The process of encountering requires a great deal of vulnerability given its emphasis on emotional storytelling and having victims of harm work with those who have harmed them to imagine and enact solutions for healing. Because parties are vulnerable, respect and transparency are foundational to this practice—to be willing to speak honestly and to be willing to listen can be difficult steps in the process of healing. When we view respect and transparency beyond the bounds of writing centers and instead as necessary elements of restoration and healing, they carry a weight we may not normally associate with these values. Suddenly, respect and transparency are not just ways we can build rapport with writers or complete effective appointments—instead, respect and transparency are tools to restore and transform our lived experiences.
Along with deepening our understanding of respect and transparency as core values, the RJ practice can also help us think about how we encounter the writers with whom we work in our UCWbL spaces. Similar to tutoring, RJ does not have to occur in a single modality—RJ practitioners have utilized face-to-face meetings but they’ve also utilized asynchronous modalities such as letter writing and video exchanges (Centre for Justice and Reconciliation, 2020c). Despite modality, the encounter must focus on providing opportunities for direct engagement. When thinking about tutoring, we must also consider engagement during our encounters. Whether in a physical or digital space with a writer, and whether working synchronously or asynchronously, we must ensure we are directly engaging with writers during appointments. For me, direct engagement means making sure I understand all of the writer’s goals for a particular project. Sure, I assume they want to meet rubric requirements and respond to the assignment prompt—but I also want to engage with the writer in this process. What do they want to accomplish in their writing? What do they want their reader to take away from the piece? This direct engagement allows for greater mutual respect between tutor and writer as well as increased opportunities for authenticity and transparency throughout the writing process.
Amends and Revision
The third cornerpost of RJ asks participants to make amends. When possible, “this repair should be done by the persons responsible for the harm.” Essential elements of this repair can include an apology, changed behavior, generosity, and restitution (Centre for Justice and Reconciliation, 2020b). In other words, the person who committed the harm must revise their thoughts and actions that led to the harm in the first place.
As tutors, it’s easy for us to understand why revision is one of our core values—it’s what we do on the day-to-day! However, I think it’s easy to miss the structural revisions we’re constantly making to things such as our office policies and our own tutoring practices. Personally, I entered my role as a tutor thinking an agenda item such as “grammar” was not only harmless but potentially necessary to include in some appointments. However, the more I’ve solidified my educational values and reflected on how I can apply those values to my tutoring work, I’ve revised that previous practice because of the potential harm it may cause a writer. Now, when appropriate, I work to prioritize conversations about grammar and how grammar relates to style, audience, and genre expectations. Instead of prescribing institutional values of “Standard English” grammar onto writers, I acknowledge the existence and uses of “Standard English” and how different styles of grammar can serve different rhetorical purposes. Even if these conversations take up an extra few minutes in a synchronous appointment or require a few extra sentences in a Written Feedback summary letter, putting in the work to revise that tutoring practice is ultimately worth it as a means of reducing harm at the UCWbL.
This anecdote is just one example of how tutors can recognize the harm we potentially cause or contribute to. By feeling confident in our abilities to amend our own tutoring practices we have the opportunity to feel emboldened to help writers amend their writing practices as well. Because we know revision is a part of the writing process, understanding how revision functions in restorative healing practices can help us amend our own harmful tutoring practices for the future.
Reintegration and Reflection
The final cornerpost of RJ focuses on reintegrating all parties back into the community. Because both victims and offenders of harm often face stigmatization, all parties must work with the community to look back on the harm and the healing process to develop mutual respect, mutual commitment, and intolerance for (but understanding of) future deviant behavior (Centre for Justice and Reconciliation, 2020e). When we reflect—when we remember—we permit ourselves to move forward.
Similar to the cornerpost of encountering, reintegration generates an opportunity for an UCWbL Core Value to be seen through a new light. From our yearly ePortfolios and professional development to our exit interviews, reflection is present all around us at the UCWbL. We may even incorporate reflection into our tutoring appointments as we utilize strategies such as reverse outlining and questions asking. However, what happens when we view reflections beyond the confines of writing center work? What happens when we acknowledge reflection as a means for community reintegration, respect, and love?
Expanding our view on the Core Value of reflection allows for new life to be breathed into our tutoring practices. As mentioned before, writing is a process just as healing is a process— consequently, reflecting in an appointment can be a catalyst for healing. When we as tutors take the time to prioritize reflection in an appointment, we implicitly invite the writer to take a step towards healing—whatever that might mean for them. As tutors, we are tasked with monitoring the pace of an appointment so, when we slow down and participate in active reflection with a writer, we show them the value of looking back in order to move forward.
Next Steps
So, where do we go next? How do we more directly integrate RJ practices into our work as tutors? Well, I leave you with this blog post as a starting point—a sign to step back and assess your tutoring repertoire. From my own experience, I find that it’s easy to get swept up in the demands of tutoring at the university level, to get caught up in working with peers on assignments and projects that often seem high stakes. But, what if you permitted yourself to pause, even if just for a moment? In what ways are you proud of how you include multiple perspectives and voices in tutoring appointments? How do you encounter writers in the physical or digital UCWbL spaces? When was the last time you actively amended a tutoring practice? How do you connect reintegration and healing as important considerations for writers? I hope these questions and opportunities for reflection are one small step to a larger, more nuanced conversation about what we can learn from the work of RJ practitioners. I hope you take away that writing (like healing) is a process, and that as tutors, we have the opportunity to participate in acts of healing every day.
References
Centre for Justice and Reconciliation. (2020a). Lesson 1: What is Restorative Justice? http://restorativejustice.org/restorative-justice/about-restorative-justice/tutorial-intro-to-restorative-justice/lesson-1-what-is-restorative-justice/#sthash.k7n8637a.zc9qZzLi.dpbs
Centre for Justice and Reconciliation. (2020b). Lesson 1: What is Restorative Justice? Amends. http://restorativejustice.org/restorative-justice/about-restorative-justice/tutorial-intro-to-restorative-justice/lesson-1-what-is-restorative-justice/amends/#sthash.Qrdc2WPD.dpbs
Centre for Justice and Reconciliation. (2020c). Lesson 1: What is Restorative Justice? Encountering. http://restorativejustice.org/restorative-justice/about-restorative-justice/tutorial-intro-to-restorative-justice/lesson-1-what-is-restorative-justice/encounter/#sthash.gL6mSG32.dpbs
Centre for Justice and Reconciliation. (2020d). Lesson 1: What is Restorative Justice? Inclusion. http://restorativejustice.org/restorative-justice/about-restorative-justice/tutorial-intro-to-restorative-justice/lesson-1-what-is-restorative-justice/inclusion/#sthash.ybGh4zJC.7CTrxDBb.dpbs
Centre for Justice and Reconciliation. (2020e). Lesson 1: What is Restorative Justice? Reintegration. http://restorativejustice.org/restorative-justice/about-restorative-justice/tutorial-intro-to-restorative-justice/lesson-1-what-is-restorative-justice/amends/#sthash.Qrdc2WPD.dpbs
International Institute for Restorative Practices. (2020). Defining Restorative: History. Restoring Community. https://www.iirp.edu/defining-restorative/history#:~:text=In%20the%20modern%20context%2C%20restorative,spree%20and%20agree%20to%20restitution.
University Center for Writing-based Learning. (2015). Our Core Values. https://condor.depaul.edu/writing/about-core-values.html