Repairing the Harm' Is One of the Worst Parts of Restorative Practice
In this video, Dr. Justin Baeder argues that the 'repairing the harm' component of restorative practice is often a performative exercise that fails to provide real accountability or healing.
Key Takeaways
- Harm can't always be 'repaired' - Asking a student to write an apology doesn't undo the trauma of being assaulted
- This puts the burden on victims - Restorative processes often require victims to participate in reconciliation they didn't ask for
- Real accountability is needed - Consequences that protect victims and deter future harm are more meaningful than forced apologies
Transcript
I think one of the most destructive aspects of restorative practice and the one that makes me the angriest is the idea of repairing the harm, right?
The idea that if a student repairs the harm they caused, then it's okay for them to not have a consequence like suspension or something like that.
And of course that might work if the harm is like a mess that the student needs to clean up or if they broke something that's fixable and they can fix it.
But with interpersonal things like violence especially, I'm not convinced that the harm can actually be repaired.
I think that's actually a bogus concept and a concept that is manipulative toward the victims, right?
If you're the victim and you're compelled or urged by authority figures to forgive and forget, I don't think that's a good thing for us to be causing in schools.
I think that is a dangerous position when it comes to violence.
I think it is an unhealthy thing to teach and model in terms of relationships, right?
Like if you are told that you should forgive and forget when someone is violent to you, what is that going to leave you with in terms of relationship skills as a young adult?
Like I'm very concerned about the pattern that we're encouraging for with this kind of forgive and forget idea that goes along with repairing the harm.
And I'm just not sure that it's possible.
And I think the one-sidedness of it really should make us think, is this a good thing to be doing, right?
Like the thing about consequences is when someone gets a consequence, the victim doesn't, right?
The victim does not suffer further from the consequence, but in any kind of repairing the harm scenario, the victim is put into a situation where they're potentially victimized further or they're at least like forced to not have a barrier, a boundary that protects them from further harm.
Like in one of the bullying stories that led to a suicide that I shared from the Washington Post story earlier today, the bullying victim had been forced to hug it out with her bullies in an earlier situation.
Like this is not right.
This is not healthy.
This does not set the right precedent or teach the right lesson to our students.
So like, again, repair the harm if the harm is reparable, but I don't think we should make it mandatory that harm be reparable.
I think it should be okay to say to someone, I don't forgive you.
And like, you know, obviously forgiveness is a good thing, but a lack of forgiveness or an unwillingness to at least forget often is necessary for keeping people safe, right?
The reason...
forgiveness is so hard is because forgiveness is kind of maladaptive right and in survival from a survival standpoint it's smart to be suspicious and mistrustful of people who have already hurt you so let me know what you think about this should we encourage students to repair the harm what do you think of this idea