Yet to overhear bits of conversation was to immediately be confronted by the difficult and inherent tensions of restorative justice, which emphasizes repairing harms of all those involved.

It’s best to describe those tensions in questions, notes conference organizer , co-director of the : Is it a social movement that encourages whole-systems change or a solidifying field of practice? What does it mean if those facilitating the process operate from a place of white privilege? Where are its efficacious impacts: in creating restorative cities, in transitional justice processes within warring countries, in trauma healing, in prisons?

鈥淚 think people were ready to converse in ways they hadn鈥檛 had the space to before,鈥� said , a doctoral student and 2010 graduate of the , who worked on the conference’s organization and format.

Themes and challenges

The conference is the second event within a larger three-year project to map the field of restorative justice. In summer 2015, 36 people representing a broad diversity of experiences, practices, backgrounds and identities, at EMU to discuss the future of the field. Renowned practitioners joined with an equal proportion bringing diverse and often-unheard perspectives.

Last week鈥檚 conference drew an even wider group of approximately 170 participants, all of whom use restorative justice practices in many settings and with many demographics, as evidenced by an incomplete list of programs represented at the conference:

• ;
• ;
• , which focuses on healing historic harms of racism;
• , an acronym for a higher education model of Promoting Restorative Initiatives for Sexual Misconduct;
• , offering alternative-to-incarceration programs for youth ages 18-24 convicted of serious and violent felonies and their victims; and
• restorative city movements, represented by groups from , Harrisonburg and .

Sessions were developed not only around settings where restorative justice principles can be practiced, but also around themes and challenges discussed in the consultation.

Many practitioners, for example, disagree whether restorative justice is a social movement or an emerging social service field. Stauffer, in his keynote address, urged participants 鈥渢o hold together鈥� this paradox between theory and practice. He also pointed out that 鈥渞acial justice, identify, power, privilege and diversity will be key themes of social change.鈥�

Building inclusivity and diversity

Pefkaros commented these key themes were ones that conference organizers sought to address in their call for presenters. 鈥淥ne conclusion from last summer鈥檚 consultation is that practitioners are often working at the intersections of race, power, privilege and identity, yet many haven鈥檛 really addressed those difficult topics,鈥� Pefkaros said. 鈥淭hose conversations hadn鈥檛 happened in any of these broad RJ meeting spaces and folks were expressing a giant question about how to do this work without having those conversations.鈥�

Creating an inclusive and diverse space was also an important goal of the conference, she added. 鈥淔ar too often conferences and other spaces are only accessible to a privileged few, often white people working in well-funded non-profits and institutions. We offered scholarships and encouraged youth and people of color to be an integral part of this conference.鈥�

Another emphasis was offering engagement opportunities across the learning modalities. Indeed the conference did just that, providing venues for 鈥渂anker-style鈥� seminars with linear seating arrangements and more organic explorations created by circles processes, storytelling sessions and experiential learning environments.

In process-oriented workshops, tensions sometimes arose, Pefkaros acknowledged. 鈥淲e almost expected that,鈥� she said. 鈥淎t the same time as it鈥檚 uncomfortable when that happens, these are people who are living and working in those tensions. If it didn鈥檛 happen, I鈥檓 not sure we would be creating the space we set out to. I鈥檓 sure there are those who aren鈥檛 completely satisfied with how this conference has gone and there are others who feel like we鈥檝e made some breakthroughs.鈥�

By the end of Thursday鈥檚 scheduled sessions, a few 鈥渇lare-ups鈥� and 鈥渉ot moments鈥� had occurred. Conference organizers addressed concerns and grievances with the help of peacemaking circles expert , a conference participant. She hosted a three-hour-plus circle late into the evening.

Yet many participants left invigorated by the conversations and the shared vision of creating a more equitable society.

鈥淭he conference rocked my world view, challenged me in very deep ways, and above all else gave me hope,” said , associate dean of students and director of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices at James Madison University. “Connecting with peacebuilders from around the world who are open to challenging and learning from each other is energizing. This group is not afraid to address the serious, confrontational, and deep issues that affect our work. I think in this spirit we all know how important this works is and the gravity of the issues facing our world.

“To paraphrase a keynote speaker, we are not willing to accept diluted justice for the sake of harmony. It takes a special group of people to come together, 聽in a special way, and in a special place to do that.鈥�

鈥業鈥檒l be doing RJ for the rest of my life鈥�

At least one participant had made up his mind about the 鈥淩J as social movement or social practice鈥� question. Marqees 鈥淪ky鈥� Banks learned about restorative justice after he had a fight with a fellow student a few years ago at Augustus F. Hawkins High School in South Los Angeles. That鈥檚 where , a EMU graduate, is restorative justice coordinator.

Since participating in a circle process after an on-campus fight, Banks became a believer in the power of restorative justice principles to change people鈥檚 lives, to help them share and show love to others. 鈥淚t鈥檚 about love first, to me,鈥� he said. 鈥淚 think you have to start with RJ on a more interpersonal level, then it grows into a movement. You live it first.鈥�

Banks, who is contemplating University of Southern California, UC Berkeley and a few other options, has been a counselor at the sponsored by California Conference of Equality and Justice and he loves bringing people together to dialogue and bond and learn to respect each other.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 need to make it a job,鈥� he says. 鈥淚鈥檒l be doing RJ for the rest of my life!鈥�

鈥淲e sought to bring together a cross-section of restorative justice practitioners, theorists and innovators,鈥� said , co-director of the Zehr Institute and the project鈥檚 leader. 鈥淪ome of the invitees were world-recognized in the restorative justice field, but others were invited to ensure that diverse and often-unheard voices would be represented.鈥�

One-third of the 36 participants were from populations that are under threat socially and economically in their regions of the world. The genders were equally represented. One person was under age 21, though two other young adults had been expected to attend.

Conversing about RJ’s ‘revolutionary intent’

The idea behind the unusual mixture of invitees was to foster provocative conversation about the possibilities for restorative justice (RJ), particularly for addressing structural injustices, said Stauffer.

In the prospectus for the three-year project submitted to the funder, , the organizers wrote: 鈥淥n the social margins, there is growing research and experimentation with RJ as a tool for addressing structural harms and injustices. This project will explore and document these emerging practices in order to recapture the revolutionary intent of RJ.鈥�

The organizers called attention in their prospectus to what they viewed as the danger of RJ settling into a 鈥渟ocial service practice鈥� centering on 鈥渞epair at the micro-interpersonal level.鈥� Instead, they wished to highlight the ways that RJ can 鈥減rovide a coherent framework for transforming macro-social structures that cause harm.鈥�

Aware that many of the 36 attendees at the first consultation would not have prior relationships with each other, the organizers devoted about half of the five days to exercises and facilitated conversations designed to establish trust and a common basis for exploring future possibilities. Senior graduate students at EMU鈥檚 served as facilitators for the process.

Tough questions

First, the attendees prepared a history line of RJ, then they explored identity, power and privilege in the field. On the third day, they embarked on a discussion of best practices.

鈥淲e accepted the challenge of bringing together a highly diverse group, especially given that many of the participants are international leaders in the field, [being] accomplished researchers, authors, practitioners and facilitators in their own right,鈥� Stauffer said.

鈥淭he challenge was heightened because the group grew beyond the original envisioned size of 20 to 25,鈥� he added. 鈥淲e needed to go well beyond 25 to have a true cross-section of voices, but it was difficult to develop coherence among three dozen people with strong opinions, especially in only five days.鈥�

Yet the participants were largely positive in their final evaluations, he said, indicating that they had not regretted investing a workweek in wrestling with each other over tough questions, such as the extent to which RJ should be viewed as a social movement, as opposed to simply a set of restorative practices.

Stauffer did not pretend to be neutral on this last point. In his opening remarks to the group, he referred to the U.S. penal reform movement having been 鈥渃o-opted.鈥� In contrast, he said he hopes RJ continues to grow into a social movement in North America, with the aim of 鈥渢ransforming deep structural conflicts and injustices.鈥� Toward this end, North Americans have much to learn from their international brothers and sisters about 鈥渓arge-scale applications鈥� of RJ, he said.

Agreement on RJ’s core values

For a social movement to be successful, Stauffer told the group, it requires political opportunity, resource mobilization, a framing message, and critical mass (or a 鈥渢ipping point鈥�).

On the last day, in a final small-group presentation, a participant observed that the 36 attendees had largely agreed during the week on RJ鈥檚 core values, but not necessarily on how to practice restorative justice.

This first consultation will be followed next year by a public conference attended by up to 120 people. Next time, Stauffer said, his organizing team will work to create a conference format that moves participants more quickly into discussions on the future of the field, with a view of moving into a research and writing phase in the final year of the project.

Participants in the consultation

The 36 participants were:

1. Aaron Lyons, Fraser Region Community, Justice Initiatives, Canada
2. Ali Gohar, Just Peace Initiatives, Pakistan
3. Barb Toews, University of Washington Tacoma / Designing Justice+Designing Spaces, USA
4. , Center for Justice and Peacebuilding, EMU
5. Brenda E. Morrison, Centre for Restorative Justice, Simon Fraser University, USA
6. Carl Stauffer, Center for Justice and Peacebuilding, EMU
7. Carolyn Boyes-Watson, Center for Restorative Justice, Suffolk University, USA
8. Catherine Bargen, Restorative Justice Coordinator Crime Prevention and Victim Services Division, Government of British Columbia, Canada
9. Dan Van Ness, Center for Justice and Reconciliation, Prison Fellowship International, USA

10. , Center for Justice and Peacebuilding, EMU and Atlanta (Ga.) consultant, USA
11. Fania Davis, executive director of Restorative Justice for Oakland (Calif.) Youth, USA
12. Cameron Simmons, youth worker with Restorative Justice for Oakland (Calif.) Youth, USA
13. Gerry Johnstone, University of Hull, UK
14. , Center for Justice and Peacebuilding, EMU
15. Jeanette Martinez, Circle of Justice LLC, New Mexico, USA
16. Jennifer Graville , Community Conferencing Program, KBF Center for Conflict Resolution (Md.), USA
17. Jodie-Ann (Jodie) Geddes, Center for Justice and Peacebuilding, EMU
18. Josh Bacon, James Madison University (Va.), USA
19. , 草莓社区
20. Katia Ornelas, Independent Consultant, Mexico
21. , (STAR), EMU
22. Kay Pranis, Circle Trainer, USA
23. Kim Workman, Stout Research Centre for New Zealand Studies, Victoria, University of Wellington, New Zealand
24. Linda Kligman, Vice President for Advancement, International Institute for Restorative Practices, USA
25. Lorenn Walker, Hawai鈥檌 Friends of Restorative Justice, USA
26. Lorraine Stutzman Amstutz, Mennonite Central Committee, USA
27. Mark Umbreit, Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking, University of Minnesota, School of Social Work, USA
28. Matthew Hartman, Clackamas County Juvenile Department, Restorative Justice Coalition of Oregon, NW Justice Forum, USA
29. Mulanda Jimmy Juma, Africa Peacebuilding Institute, St. Augustine College of South Africa
30. Najla El Mangoush, Center for Justice and Peacebuilding, EMU
31. Robert Yazzie, Chief Justice Emeritus of the Navajo Nation, USA
32. Seth Lennon Weiner, Porticus, New York, USA
33. sujatha baliga, Impact Justice, USA
34. Susan Sharpe, Advisor on Restorative Justice, Center for Social Concerns, University of Notre Dame, USA
35. Theo Gavrielides, The IARS International Institute and the Restorative Justice for All Institute, UK
36. , Strategies for Trauma Awareness and Resilience (STAR), EMU

The facilitators were led by project manager , and included CJP graduate students Janine Aberg, South Africa; Michael McAndrew, USA; Jordan Michelson, USA; Mikhala Lantz-Simmons, USA; and Ahmed Tarik, Iraq.

And those SPI alumni who aren鈥檛 aiming to earn a degree? Some of them just keep coming back year after year 鈥� almost as an educational vacation 鈥� or they send their colleagues and friends to SPI.

Of the 2,800 SPI participants over the last 19 years, more than one in five have been repeat participants, taking courses during a second year or even multiple years of SPI. In that number must be counted almost all of CJP鈥檚 398 master鈥檚 degree alumni, plus 91 graduate certificate holders. Some of their MA classmates are now SPI instructors, plus many of their professors have taught at SPI year after year.

Detouring six hours to reconnect

Among the first drop-bys to SPI 2014 were Florina Benoit and Ashok Gladston of India, both 2004 MA grads from CJP and now PhD-holders. They made a six-hour round-trip detour from a family-related stop in Baltimore, Maryland, to say 鈥渉ello鈥� to folks at SPI.

Gladston was last at EMU in June 2011 when he gave a heart-wrenching talk at EMU centering on women from a minority group in southern India who were being violently victimized by mobs from the surrounding majority group.

The two, both former Fulbright Scholars married to each other, happened to arrive on May 7 when Doreen Ruto of Kenya, a 2006 MA graduate, was the featured SPI 鈥淔rontier Luncheon鈥� speaker, along with her colleague (and son) Richy Bikko, a 2011 BA graduate who majored in justice, peace and conflict studies.

Over that day, Gladston and Benoit interacted with a dozen professors, staffers and alumni whom they recalled from their studies at CJP 10 years ago.

When the day turned to evening and their borrowed car was found to have a non-working headlight, they lingered for activities very familiar to them 鈥撀燼 community 鈥減otluck鈥� meal, followed by a cultural program led by SPI participants, and informal dancing. (They huddled with this writer for much of that time answering questions about their work in India 鈥� but more on that later.)

They then accepted the impromptu invitation of Margaret Foth, a retiree who has been a long-time liaison with CJP alumni, and slept in a guest room at the Foths鈥� home, adjacent to EMU.

聽鈥淚t was like we recalled from our time as graduate students,鈥� says Benoit. 鈥淲e felt like we were visiting our second home.鈥�

In 2013, Gladstone and Benoit had been scheduled to teach an SPI course on the logistics of humanitarian aid 鈥� more specifically, on how such aid intersects with peacebuilding practices, including the 鈥渄o no harm鈥� principle 鈥� but, unfortunately, that year the number of people seeking such training was insufficient to hold the course.

Always more to learn

A third former Fulbright Scholar, Shoqi Abas Al-Maktary, MA 鈥�07, took a break from his job as country director in Yemen for Search for Common Ground and spent May 15-23 taking the SPI course 鈥淒esigning Peacebuilding Programs 鈥� From Conflict Assessment to Planning. 鈥�

鈥淚 don鈥檛 think anyone in this field can afford to stop being a student,鈥� says Al-Maktary, who holds a second master鈥檚 degree in security management from Middlesex University in the United Kingdom. 鈥淭here is always more to know, more to explore with others in the field. And SPI 鈥� with its intensive courses 鈥� is a great place to do this.鈥�

Thomas DeWolf of the United States just finished attending his fourth SPI in six years, with the course 鈥淢edia for Societal Transformation.鈥� He first came in 2008 where he explored Coming to the Table (explained in next paragraph). He returned for a restorative justice course in 2009, and then in 2012, received a scholarship to take 鈥�Healing the Wounds of History: Peacebuilding through Transformative Theater.鈥�

DeWolf鈥檚 connection to SPI began with CJP鈥檚 sponsorship of Coming to the Table, an organization focused on addressing the enduring impact of the slavery era in the United States. DeWolf has played a leading role in this organization, which held its annual conference at EMU this year, over a weekend between two sessions of SPI.

Seven times at SPI

A 76-year-old clinical psychologist from Argentina, Lilian Burlando, has an astonishing record of attendance at SPI, having attended about a third of all the years SPI has been held. From her home at the southern-most tip of South America, Tierra del Fuego, Burlando has attended SPI seven times: in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. Often with her, also taking classes, have been members of her family of five children and 19 grandchildren. One of her daughters, Maria Karina Echazu, for instance, is a prosecuting attorney in Argentina who took a restorative justice course in 2007 and a practice course in 2011.

Burlando calls SPI 鈥渁 refreshing experience,鈥� citing interesting course topics, excellent professors and the sense of community. 鈥淭o me,鈥� she says, 鈥淪PI has been a fountain of intellectual and spiritual enrichment.鈥�

Almost all the teachers at SPI 鈥� even those like Johonna McCants, who holds a PhD from the University of Maryland 鈥� have also been students at SPI at some point. McCants explains how she found her way to SPI:

In 2009, while finishing my doctoral dissertation, I began searching online for practical training in the issues I was writing about. I discovered CJP and SPI and quickly fell in love. I was attracted by the integration of theory and practice, the variety of courses, the diversity of participants, backgrounds of the instructors, and that the program was housed at a Christian university. I participated in Strategies for Trauma Awareness and Resilience (STAR) at SPI just a few weeks after receiving my PhD. The STAR experience, which was phenomenal, kept me coming back for more.

McCants brought along a first-timer to SPI 2014, Julian Turner. These two, who first met as teenagers, would be married in a month. But first Turner, who works at an infectious disease clinic in Washington D.C., soaked up the wisdom of Hizkias Assefa in 鈥淔orgiveness and Reconciliation,鈥� while McCants co-taught with Carl Stauffer 鈥淩estorative Justice: The Promise, the Challenge.鈥�

Loves the diverse people

From her base as a high school teacher in a public school in Washington D.C. 鈥� and with experience as an adjunct professor at the University of Maryland 鈥� McCants says she is struck by the egalitarian learning community formed by SPI, where the instructors and participants respect and learn from each other.

Her favorite part about SPI?

Definitely, the people! I enjoy learning from people from different parts of the United States and countries all over the world, hearing their stories and developing new relationships. I also like reuniting and reconnecting with people I鈥檝e met during previous times at SPI.

Discovering SPI on the internet, as McCants did, is not typical. More often, SPI participants are encouraged to attend by previous participants.

Libby Hoffman, president and founder of the Catalyst for Peace foundation, for example, attended SPI in 1996 and took another CJP course in 2000. This year she dispatched two rising leaders of Fambul Tok 鈥� an organization doing amazing work of promoting post-war reconciliation throughout Sierra Leone 鈥� to take two successive courses at SPI. Micheala Ashwood and Emmanuel Mansaray both took 鈥淟eading Healthy Organizations,鈥� in addition to 鈥淎nalysis 鈥� Understanding Conflict鈥� and 鈥淧sychosocial Trauma,鈥�
respectively.

Ten CJP master鈥檚 degree alumni had teaching roles at SPI 2014: Dr. Sam Gbaydee Doe, MA 鈥�98; Dr. Barb Toews, 聽 MA 鈥�00; Dr. Carl Stauffer, MA 鈥�02; Elaine Zook Barge, MA 鈥�03; Roxy Allen Kioko, MA 鈥�07 (PhD candidate);聽Paulette Moore, MA 鈥�09 (PhD candidate); Jacqueline Roebuck Sakho, MA 鈥�09 (PhD candidate); Caroline Borden, MA 鈥�12; Soula Pefkaros, MA 鈥�10 (PhD candidate); and Danielle Taylor, MA 鈥�13. < 鈥� Bonnie Price Lofton