Erik Wessel
What came through the book as well, and really needs additional attention is the ripple harms that ripple out across the community. So sexual and gender based misconduct on campus, more often than not, isn’t just encapsulated in individual experiences. It often has much broader impacts across communities, whether it be class groups, student organizations, you name it, ripple harm is going to ripple out across those groups. And so finding ways as an institution to be attentive to those things, and really work toward repair that and repairing that harm, simultaneously. is so important.

Keith Edwards
Hello, and welcome to Student Affairs NOW, I’m your host Keith Edwards. Today I’m joined by the editors and authors of the new book Applying Restorative Justice to Campus Sexual Misconduct. This topic is full of cautions and possibilities, and I’m so excited to have two leaders here to discuss this discuss their book and the many contributions of their contributing authors. Student Affairs NOW is the premier podcast and online learning community for 1000s of us who work in alongside or adjacent to the field of higher education and student affairs. We release new episodes every week on Wednesdays find details about this episode, or browse our archives at studentaffairsnow.com. Today’s episode is sponsored by Symplicity. A true partner Symplicity supports all aspects of student life with technology platforms that empower institutions to make data driven decisions. As I mentioned, I’m your host, Keith Edwards, my pronouns are he him his. I’m a speaker, consultant, and Coach, you can find out more about me at Keith edwards.com. And I’m recording this from my home in Minneapolis, Minnesota, at the intersections of the ancestral homelands of both the Dakota and the Ojibwe peoples. Let’s get to the conversation and this important topic today. Kaaren and Erik, thank you so much for being with us, and for contributing to this project and this book, and love to have both of you. Introduce yourselves Kaaren lead us off.

Kaaren M. Williamsen
Thanks so much, Keith. It’s really nice to be with you today and to be on the podcast. And I’m really excited to be talking about this book that we’ve been working a long time on. It’s definitely been a passion project. I am currently at the University of Michigan, I direct an office called PEAR prevention, education, assistance and resources. It’s a newer Prevention Office focused on training, education, engagement with faculty and staff on campus. But I’ve been in this work of restorative justice and Campus Sexual Misconduct for a long time and really started my journey of that when I was way back at Carlton College. And Carlton gave me a leave for a sabbatical for a semester in 2010, to do a deep dive into restorative justice and sexual misconduct. And I thought I’d go away, figure it out and bring it back. And we’d be done in a year. And it was more of like, decade, decade and a half projects. I thought it would be done in a year. And it was really more of a a career changer. So well, we can get more into that. But I’ve been in this work and for a long time. And I’m really happy to be here.

Keith Edwards
Well, I’ve had the fortune to talk with Kaaren about this along the journey and along the way, and to hear you ideating and talking about this, from really a place of passion and commitment and care. So it’s great to see this book out there in the world, and to have you here to talk about it. And with Erik, who is a co editor on the book, Erik, tell us a little a little bit about you.

Erik Wessel
Hello, Keith. First, thank you so much for the invitation for the opportunity. I’m Erik Wessel. He’s he him pronouns. And I’ve served as the Director of the Office of Student conflict resolution here at the University of Michigan since 2015. I’ve logged in and advocate of the needs focused restorative interventions across a wide range of community issues. And I came to Michigan in 2015, to build upon the foundational work of my predecessors, who really envisioned and operationalized the spectrum model of conflict resolution pathways. And for me, a core contribution in my time here has been to collaborate with exceptional colleagues in the development and implementation of a spectrum of restorative adaptable pathways for meeting individual community need in instances of sexual and gender based harm. And really, this book that we’re going to be discussing today, for my part, is an outflow of network.

Keith Edwards
Thank you. Awesome. Well, I’m so excited to learn from both of you. But let’s frame this a little bit. As I mentioned in the opening this is topic has both cautions and possibilities, which was one of the reasons Kaaren couldn’t go away for a semester and figure it out because it’s complicated for all sorts of reasons and also full of possibilities. And I think maybe those are one in the same that cautions are part of what makes it offers a possibility. So help us unpack this for folks a little bit.

Kaaren M. Williamsen
I think you know, my own trajectory as a student affairs professional as a former title nine coordinator and somebody who’s been doing this work in higher education for a long time. I feel like my story my lived experience is I see that reflected in a lot of other people’s lives experience of people get into this work because they care a great deal. They want to be effective they want to do what are Title Nine obligations of stop the misconduct, prevent its reoccurrence and remedy the effects. Right I, I heard that from my dissertation research, lots of Student Affairs, Title Nine conduct folks really want that to be true. And I think what I found in my own work, and what I found in my own research with those folks, was that the tools that we had our traditional investigative resolution options are not sufficient in being able to do that for everybody who was seeking assistance. Some folks wanting to make a report wanted that more formal, investigative option with a hearing, and that that kind of approach to what they experienced on campus. But I think, as a practitioner, and talking to lots of practitioners, I heard from folks directly that they didn’t want what we were offering terms of that kind of investigative approach, and we had nothing else. And so that’s part of what prompted me to go out searching, I remember I was sitting in a hearing. And, and I had this moment, this was probably 2008 2009. And I remember thinking, This feels traumatizing for everybody in the room. And what if we started from a point of view of healing? What would our process look like? Now? I didn’t know what I was really asking. But sometimes when you ask the universe a question, it sends you on a pathway that you didn’t anticipate. And that was one for me of criminal justice reform and looking at justice systems and indigenous forms of justice, and how how have other systems looked at these things. And when I found restorative justice, when Howard’s there are calls it a process by which we can address harm to people and relationships. That really resonated with me. Because often when people were coming forward to say this thing happened to me, they wanted help with that harm to themselves, and to their community. Often, this happens in community. And so our tools, were not able to really address the harm to the people in relationships. And that’s where restorative justice for me was a possible option. And and so over the last 1214 years that I’ve been doing this, I see school, after school struggling with that same thing of we’ve developed these elaborate formal title nine investigative resolution processes, but not everybody wants to use those. So I was interested in how might we expand that. So we can actually respond to more cases, and meet people where they’re at and really think about what are they asking for? What needs do they have? And how might we address those needs. So it’s, you know, this was a big labor of love pulling this book together, because there were people across the country who were doing this work creating it on their campus. And so part of what Erik and I wanted to do was really capture the insights from this emerging field of practice and philosophy to see what does this actually look like on the ground? And what what can practitioners learn from folks who are already already doing this?

Keith Edwards
I really resonate that with that, because I been thinking back on my time during those investigations being in the room. My experience, not always, but but maybe half the time was someone saying, this happened to me. I don’t think this person meant it, or understood. And but they need to know, so they don’t keep doing it. Yeah. And I’d be like, Okay, well, this is great. And then you’d meet with the respondent who would say, I don’t understand why I’m here, I don’t get what is happen. And then 30 days later, on the other side, have a bunch of meetings. It was so adversarial. And he’s a predator and she’s a sociopath and bla bla bla, and just like, and I not only was that not helpful, but I felt like the process in many ways had fostered that the process that we sort of felt like we had to do, at that time, foster that and I just thought there’s a there’s another path here. Sometimes things start with that and need that. So I really resonate with that yearning for something about the harm about the people. And also the you mentioned the people involved in the community but also the people they’re going to interact with for The rest of their life, right? doesn’t end at a suspension or graduation or things like that. Erik, what would you like to add here?

Erik Wessel
Yeah, you know, Keith, I think that the question asked about possibilities. I would start by reframing that as I think that there’s an imperative here, in the imperative is, I think that if there’s one thing that we can generally all agree to, is that a singular pathway for resolving such a complex issue is never going to meet everybody’s need. And so if we can start there at that fundamental point of agreement, then it It allows us to, then take that conversation and say, Okay, well, then, then now what? What follows on that, what imperative does that create for us? What opportunity for creativity? Does that allow for us to embark on, you know, and drawing upon what you were talking about Keven in carton as well. You know, we see that kind of dissonance play out within our community, we know from data just here at the University of Michigan, that there’s a substantial amount of people that that don’t report. And when we asked them why they don’t report, there’s a myriad of reasons. But a really significant one, to the tune of perhaps maybe one and four are because they don’t want that person to get in trouble. So of the many reasons why people don’t report that’s one that would lead them to, you know, not to see the adversarial process and say, That’s not for me. Now, does that mean that they’re not interested in accountability? I would say that that would be a bridge too far. I don’t think that’s what they’re saying. And that’s where I think, you know, at least, in part, going in the direction of having a broader national conversation around what the what a restorative lens could look like, in this space is a natural follow on from that great.

Keith Edwards
But I hear from folks, as I work with multiple campuses, folks who are just really connecting with restorative practices, in traditional conduct cases, and even in community building, right proactive circles at the beginning of the year and residence hall community, and then saying, but we just can’t go there around sexual misconduct. We’d like to, but we don’t know how to do that. And we see all the ways it could be full of possibility, but also with, we just don’t know how. And it sounds like you sort of gathered people who were experimenting and trying things and doing things. So tell us a little bit about how the book came to be, how it’s organized, and what folks who are wanting some possibilities, some solutions, some, some structure, some guidance, might find it, it just kick us off, here Erik.

Erik Wessel
Happy to do that. So I think that some history here is perhaps important. So around the time that our institution, the University of Michigan was grappling with kind of foundational court process in dovie bomb. So that particular ruling, and then the subsequent federal regulations, when we really became even more convinced that, as I was saying earlier, this continuation of a singular pathway for resolving campus sexual harm, was going to continue to be insufficient. And so it really demanded this creative consideration of additional options. So that allowed for the, the space, the institutional space for us to start that conversation in a very different place. You know, so we we were able to use a really challenging institutional moment, involving litigation to springboard the conversation forward. Now, it was also against the backdrop of the fact that, you know, we had relatively well developed and widely utilized conflict resolution resources that utilizes a spectrum of conflict resolution pathways, under which we could undergird a framework, you know, build a framework for what this could look like, you know, so we certainly weren’t weren’t building from scratch by any stretch of the imagination, but but did allow us to go in in a positive direction. So okay, so fast forward a little bit in terms of kind of current and eyes evolution of thinking around this book. So really was at a conference around that same time issue where we really collectively observed that colleagues across the country were acknowledging and in some ways attempting to make sense of a possible future in this area of work. And given our own background and institutional direction, we felt the time was right to explore the development of some foundational scholarship to support the current and potential future practitioners in this area of work. Now, you know, this is still clearly emerging in this book really seeks to provide a collection of expert voices really to bring some initial clarity to what is admittedly an otherwise complex set of work for sure. So this book is organized. To that end in four sections that I would lay out for your listeners, part one really focuses around the philosophical grounding, and advice on where to start. For a practitioner, you know, so gives a good baseline place to begin. Part Two goes into greater detail about process and interventions, and really gets into the meat of it for people fairly quickly. Recognizing that this is a area of work that requires a high degree of facilitative expertise. Part three really focuses on that restorative facilitator, and their practice in the sexual and gender based misconduct space. And then finally, part four, provides a collection of what I would describe as topical essays that really provide wisdom from experts across the country. That kind of contextualize is what processes look like the diversity of implementations across the country. And just give some good wisdom and insight into how practitioners and institutions alike can start going in a positive direction here, Kaaren, what would you add to that?

Kaaren M. Williamsen
Um, I think part of what I was thinking about Keith, when you were saying that you hear people around the country expressed some interest in this, but not after sexual misconduct. And I think, partly, this book is also for those folks. Because that is something that I’ve heard a lot. And it’s not because they don’t see the need. They’re just not quite sure of like, how would we even start that? Absolutely. And, and that’s really why we wanted to have a practitioner focused book that is based in research, but also speaks directly to practitioners. Because that is such a common thing that I hear from people around the country. And part of what I’ve been doing the last five, seven years is doing workshops, trainings, for RJ in sexual misconduct. And so I’m hearing from people who were committed enough to sign up for a week long training or a month long intensive. I’m teaching a course right now part of a certificate program. And a lot of the folks in the those trainings or in that course, have started at that point of like, I’m aware of the need, I’m just not quite sure of the how, even like, how do I convince people about this?

Keith Edwards
Yeah. Well, I think you’re both highlighting. I’ll point out in the title, the first word is applying restorative justice to campus sexual assault. And then the subtitle is a guide to emerging practices and emerging is highlighted. So this is very practical. Yeah, this isn’t. This is making the case. But it’s also here’s how you can do it. Here’s some stories. Here’s some examples. Here’s how we’ve done it on our campus. Here’s how we’ve done it over here. Here’s what we learned from this. And so it really brings together a lot of different perspectives. A lot of folks who we’ve had on the podcast, a lot of folks who’ve been writing and thinking about this for multiple decades, and a lot of practitioners who are putting this into practice in their day to day basis. How did you pull some of these folks together?

Kaaren M. Williamsen
These are a lot of folks that we have run across over our years of doing this work, who we’ve responded to questions or we’ve collaborated with on trainings or on, you know, we meet them at conferences, we meet them nationally because there are people who are trying to figure out how to do this work, and we’re talking to one another. And that’s really when Erik and I were thinking about this book, we knew we were like, oh, there are people that can help contribute to this. This is not a Kaaren and Erik show, right? This is, we’re going to do this work of collecting folks together to share the range of emerging practices. There isn’t just one, right. So it’s, there isn’t just one model. I think there are some guideposts that Sheila McMahon and I write about in one of the chapters that I contribute to, of like, here are some things to ground yourself in. But, but there are a lot of different ways this can look, depending on your community, right how there’s a chapter from folks at Luther College, how they approach things is going to be different, they have a very different community different size than the way at University of Michigan is going to so there’s not a one size fits all approach. And part of what we wanted to make sure people understood was that restorative justice is a set of practices. But more importantly, it’s a philosophy. It’s a philosophy of crime of wrongdoing a policy violation. Again, that’s more focused on the harm. And how do we address the harm? How do we make sure it doesn’t happen? Again, what is real meaningful accountability look like, then on what the policy violation is, and then what is somebody deserved from that particular policy violation. So it’s just it’s a different starting point. And it’s one that keep that what you said earlier around, you know, where people start in the process, and then where they end up, can be really different. And they can start from a point of I found this in my research of somebody saying, I just want them to understand what they did was wrong, or it hurt me, and I don’t want them to do it again. And then once they’re in an adversarial process, and the respondent is really only asked to defend themselves, then they’re off to the races. And once somebody who’s bringing the report comes forward, sees somebody’s denial, then all bets are off. And it’s sort of a bloodbath. And it’s, it is poor. And they’re

Keith Edwards
both telling the story to their friends over and over and it shifts and it moves. And you see all of that, which is very human and very understandable.

Kaaren M. Williamsen
Yeah. And it, I think, for me, I just kept thinking, it doesn’t have to be this way. And it’s incumbent on us who were doing the work. We’re creating these processes to figure out if there’s another way forward, is there something else we can offer to our students? It’s, you know, one of the fundamental tenants of a restorative process that it has to be voluntary for everybody. This is not something that we can shoehorn people into or say, no, no, you can only go in this pathway that is completely inappropriate. It’s a post to the regulations. Regulations require us to have it be voluntary. And the restorative philosophy requires requires it to be a voluntary process.

Keith Edwards
We’ve talked about some of the traditional process and how that doesn’t sometimes work for folks. And it didn’t have to be this way. What can it look like? Or there has been some success stories where where this is really thrive, maybe from your own experience, or maybe from from folks in the book?

Kaaren M. Williamsen
Yeah, I think I am trying. My immediate response was to tear up because I think it is possible. And I think part of it is to first meet people where they’re at, and really have an understanding of what does somebody who’s bringing this experience forward and asking for the institution to help for us to fully understand kind of what what did they experience? What do they think and say that they need, and from our perspective, giving them that time to process that? And to not say you need to decide by Friday, because we have to send the thing out on Monday, right? It’s a organic, sort of adaptable process to use the terms from the University of Michigan and adapts to the needs of the parties and the processes that I’ve seen where it’s been really successful. The facilitators are able to really understand the parties and Both parties. And we talk a lot. And we it’s written about in the book of multi partial process, right of multi partiality, this is not neutrality. This is is one of my facilitator friend says, I’m all in with you, and I’m all in with you, because I want all the parties to get the most out of the process as they can. And the facilitators have to be the steward of the process. And both parties need to feel understood. And it feel like they have a voice in what’s happening. And I think the processes that I’ve seen that have gone the best, it’s not like everyone’s friends, at the end, there’s oftentimes I don’t ever want to see them again, and that’s fine. But they feel a resolution, they feel like they understood, there was an understanding of, I get it, I’m not going to do that, again, there’s some sort of apology. But research shows us and tells us in this space that that’s, that’s often not what people actually want. Sometimes it’s what they want. They just want acknowledgement and to not do it again, like I want them to learn. And if they feel like they have some say in them having a learning, and then they’re getting their needs met. For like, I want to make sure I’m preventing this in the way I can that somebody else doesn’t have to experience this from Erik, any. I sort of talked in generalities, but anything that you would share from what you’ve seen

Erik Wessel
You know, so calibrating towards success, quote unquote, successes is a that’s a tricky thing. That’s a that’s a difficult thing, because in a voluntary process, there there is, there’s no real way to guarantee outcomes to that process. Right. It’s about as Kaaren was describing, you know, are we elevating voices are we provide an equitable opportunity to, to engage in the process that the parties themselves have defined as most useful for them and agreed to, along with to use the phrase that Kaaren used a multi partial facilitator on our end, that is what we found to be the most successful where, you know, the agency is really given to the parties that are involved truly given to the parties that involve are involved to identify the resolution pathway that is going to be most useful for them, whether that be a facilitated dialogue, where perhaps the parties don’t want to be in the same place, which is not uncommon. And we have a shuttle negotiation process, you know, where we can work toward an agreement that is focused on meeting the needs, first and foremost, of course, of the harms party, you know, but also taking into consideration what are the needs of the respondents to, to learn and grow from this, and to really lean into that. That moment of opportunity around preventing future recurrence of sexual misconduct in our community. That’s, that’s where that starts.

Keith Edwards
Now, this is great. We’re using some of my all time favorite words like healing accountability agency, if we could just work hope in there we’d be we’d get my bingo card. So thank you, this is great. This is great. I’d love to hear you know, I got to edit a book, which Kaaren contributed to and I learned so much, I learned so much from reading each of the chapters and the evolution and I learned so much from these different folks and different perspectives, I’d love to hear as sort of the organizers, right, who had thought about this a lot, and then invited so many people to come in and contribute. What were some of the things that you really learned through the process?

Erik Wessel
Yeah. You know, I think that if there’s a couple of things that I really like to just kind of Cascade forward to your listeners here is that this book is really about jumpstarting and advancing an important conversation, you know, so it was always going to be an edited book, it had to be an edited book, because it needed to elevate the voices of so many important practitioners in this in this field. And it’s a start to a conversation, because there’s so many more voices to add to it. You know, we only have so many chapters that we can fit into a

Keith Edwards
well, you got 20 chapters in there. So nice job and with a lot of different contributing authors. So there’s a lot of voices who are a part of this.

Erik Wessel
Yep. You know, but we we remain at the beginning here, and there’s a lot of work ahead to do for sure.

Kaaren M. Williamsen
I think the only thing I would add is just in looking at the work. It was important that we include a chapter couple chapters on on educational interventions for folks who have caused harm, because part of what I’ve observed in this work over the last 5,6,7 years, is that as campuses want to develop a restorative approach to sexual misconduct, they have to simultaneously make sure they have a curriculum for respondents. So sometimes we call respondent education, the folks who wrote the chapter, call it specialized interventions for addressing problematic sexual behavior using more first person language. And because if the biggest request right students come in with, I want them to understand what they did was wrong and not do it again, they’ll understand what they did takes time. And, and part of that curriculum that we have at the University of Michigan, is written about in that chapter. But those things have to go hand in hand. Because we know that our sex ed curriculum, our consent based education, or healthy relationships, education for K 12, and, and and college leaves a lot to be desired. And so there’s a lot of unlearning, and re education that is needed for healthy, safe, respectful relationships. And so creating an educational approach for that is crucial. And that’s one of the things that we saw develop, wherever RJ was developing that was developing simultaneously. So I kind of knew that and then we definitely saw that in the chapters.

Keith Edwards
Yeah, yeah. Well, learning is another one of my favorite words. So thanks for that. Yes,

Kaaren M. Williamsen
yes. And I’m hopeful together.

Erik Wessel
One additional point that I kind of came to my mind as you were speaking, as you know, I think we, in this space, at this point in time, are often thinking most about interventions for individual benefit. What came through the book as well, and really needs additional attention is the ripple harms that ripple out across the community. So sexual and gender based misconduct on campus, more often than not, isn’t just encapsulated in individual experiences. It often has much broader impacts across communities, whether it be class groups, student organizations, you name it, ripple harm is going to ripple out across those groups. And so finding ways as an institution to be attentive to those things, and really work toward repair that and repairing that harm, simultaneously. is so important.

Keith Edwards
Yeah, it’s a team’s group of friends. When I’m talking with college students about prevention, they’re often both our friends. Right? And how do we make sure that one isn’t a survivor and one isn’t a perpetrator? Because that’s better for both of them? And when something does happen, it often affects the community around them. That’s a great, great point. Yeah,

Kaaren M. Williamsen
definitely. I think the only other thing I would add is part of what we learned. And part of what I learned in some of the research I did with Sheila on early adopters, we did a research project that is some one of our chapters in the book talks about this, and we have another paper about it. But what we were McMahon right, with Sheila McMahon, one of the things we found was that on each campus, there needed to be a champion, there needed to be somebody to usher this through, who could help people understand what it was what it wasn’t, answer the difficult questions, and kind of be that consistent force of Yep, we can do this. Look at these policies. Here’s a training. I’m happy to volunteer for this, like somebody had to embody it, and see it through. And that was consistent across across the organizations. And that’s part of why we wrote We had Pablo Sutera and Elise Lopez, write this chapter on what about due process to answer some of the very common questions that come up. So it’s like, isn’t this, you know, questions like, isn’t this going soft on crime? Right, so how do you respond to a question like that? So they give some answers to some of those common questions that can be hard to figure out how do you respond to these questions? So they give a little guidance on some of those really common questions in that chapter.

Keith Edwards
And not just respond to these questions, but people might not know what I don’t even know what I already answered that for myself. Right. Yeah. So helping clarify for yourself and then also giving some tools to communicate. Yeah, to others.

Kaaren M. Williamsen
Yeah, right.

Keith Edwards
I’m while we’re coming up on the end of our time. But I’d love to hear from both of you what you’re thinking about now. Podcasts call Student Affairs NOW we always end with what are you thinking, troubling or pondering? Now? The book is out. But it’s, my guess is it’s been at least two years since you started inviting people in and it’s written and edited, and it’s out and thinking emerges. So love to hear from both of you a bit about where you’re thinking about this now. So I think, Erik, we’re going to start with you.

Erik Wessel
So I suspect that maybe Kaaren might talk a little bit about training as she has in the past, I’m going to go in a little bit of a different direction, kind of thinking institutionally. When we think about applying restorative approaches to any area of practice, I think about what we often describe as a collective impact model, you know, so in other words, it’s not just my office’s responsibility, it’s not just Kaaren’s offices responsibility, it’s not just our wellness unit, it’s not just, you know, the, you can go on and on and on. It’s about how do we bring to bear the totality of our institutional resources together in a way that really gets at these truly restorative interventions, restorative being meeting needs working toward healing? You know, so, you know, I think that, you know, we’ve made some strides in that direction. But we also have some gaps as well, a lot of our work institutionally has been focused on the student experience. And we also know that we’ve got lots of other stakeholder groups, faculty, staff. So a lot of the good work that Kaaren and her team are building and doing, I think is, is so important. So I guess that’s, that’s what I’m kind of thinking here at our own institution, thinking bigger and broader, expanding the vision, really helping people catch that vision and see themselves as contributors to it.

Keith Edwards
What I imagine part of that, too, is communicating with students ahead of time, because as you mentioned, if they don’t know that this isn’t even an option, and they just assume it’s adversarial, like they see in the news, or like they assume from TV shows or whatever, then they don’t even report and even find out, it’s an option. So you got to be proactive, and let people know that there are different ways, which I imagine is really challenging, because until it happens, nobody thinks this is going to happen. Right, right. And then it’s like telling students on their first day living with a roommate about roommate conflict, they’re gonna be best friends for life. Right? It’s never just not gonna happen.

Erik Wessel
Yeah. Which is why we need student organizations to know about our adaptable resolution processes, why we need our faculty to have a general awareness of what this work looks like, our academic advisors, you know, the list goes on and on the degree to which our community has a broader base awareness of what adaptable resolution resources look like, the better off we’re all going to be because they are going to be able to help us communicate forward. What these resources might be able to do in order to really meet that need.

Keith Edwards
It’s such a great point, because peers are often the ones telling someone I think what happened to you was sexual misconduct. Oh, no, no, no, no, no. Well, if you’re saying this, because for lots of reasons, we don’t want to think harm has happened to us. But often those peers are saying and here’s you should talk to someone Oh, no, I, that is often you know, sort of peers who are helping people process and think through and learn about options when maybe they’re not ready to think about it in that way. Right. Kaaren, what are you troubling now?

Kaaren M. Williamsen
Well, I, I keep thinking about trust, and really feels like in my career, we’re at a low point of trust of institutions. And, and so part of our institutional response to harm when people report it to us. We have an opportunity to also address their mistrust in an institution. And I think, you know, our traditional investigative processes. People work really hard to make them trauma informed and compassionate. And at the end of the day, they’re not about healing. There are a means by which an institution can hold a respondent accountable. And the harms party is really a witness. And there’s no other way around that. Right? It’s just the same as a criminal justice process. And Judith Herman said, right, if we were to design a process to be intentionally traumatizing to victims, it would look a lot like our criminal justice process. And when I first read that, that was like a knife through my heart, and I was like, This is what I’ve helped to create on my own campus. And I felt an imperative to create something different, to really meet the needs of people who are harmed on my watch while I was on that campus. And so I feel like the other phrase I just want to leave with people is one of my favorite quotes by a visionary that I love. And he says, pain pushes until vision pulls. And I feel like the pain of our traditional processes are pushing administrators to look for a different vision of how we might create something that is hopeful that is focused on healing and holistic behavior, change that stop prevent remedy, right, that really lives into that title nine mandate. And and we’re we’re seeing that restorative justice options might help folks to do that on their campus.

Keith Edwards
Wonderful. I always know when Kaaren puts the glasses up, we’re in for it.

Kaaren M. Williamsen
I had to make space for extra good. Yeah,

Keith Edwards
yeah. Anything else either of you would like to add before we wrap up and include today.

Kaaren M. Williamsen
I’m just so appreciate the opportunity. And, and that there are a lot of people who are interested. And so we’re, you know, we’re happy to be a resource and to connect folks who might not even know each other on their own campuses. But there are a lot of folks who are trying to see this develop across the country.

Erik Wessel
My expectation to your listeners is join the conversation. Yeah, that’s where this is headed. You know, there’s a lot more to to explore. There’s a lot more to do, and a lot more work to be done. So we’re looking forward to being in it with you.

Keith Edwards
Yeah. Well, and check out the book, I got to read an early copy and offer an endorsement for it, which is I was really honored to be able to do that as tons of folks have contributed including folks who have been on this podcast talking about it, including some really visionary leaders in the field, some really great practitioners, some really great critical thinkers. And if you want to connect with other people, this would be a great way to sort of tap into some of those folks, and connect with them. So thanks to both of you for your work on this over decades. And for your work on the book over the years and for your time today. Sharing and thinking and inspiring us I really appreciate your leadership and your contributions. So thank you both so much. And thanks to our sponsor for today’s episode Symplicity. Symplicity is the global leader in student services technology platforms with state of the art technology that empowers institutions to make data driven decisions specific to their goals. A true partner to the institution Symplicity supports all aspects of student life, including but not limited to Career Services and Development, student conduct in wellbeing, students access and accessibility services. To learn more, visit symplicity.com or connect with them on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. As always, a huge shout out to our producer Natalie Ambrosey who does all the work behind the scenes to make us look and sound good. We love the support for these important conversations from our community. You can help us reach even more folks by subscribing to the podcast, hitting it on YouTube, subscribing to our weekly newsletter, announcing each new episode and more. If you’re so inclined, you can even leave us a five star review. It really helps these reach more folks. I’m Keith Edwards. Thanks to thanks to the fabulous guests today. And to everyone who’s watching and listening. Please make it a great week. Thank you all.

https://www.routledge.com/Applying-Restorative-Justice-to-Campus-Sexual-Misconduct-A-Guide-to-Emerging/Williamsen-Wessel/p/book/9781642673852

University of San Diego Center for Restorative Justice

https://www.sandiego.edu/soles/centers-and-institutes/restorative-justice/

• Training coming up in December — Intro to RJ and Campus Sexual Harm
• Certificate Program — has a new track for folks interested in doing a year-long training to become facilitators

Ampersand Restorative Justice: https://ampersandsrj.org/