The Use of Campus Based Restorative Justice Practices to Address Incidents of Bias: Facilitators’ Experiences

University of New Orleans ScholarWorks@UNO University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations Dissertations and Theses Spring 5-18-2018 The Use of Campus Based Restorative Justice Practices to Address Incidents of Bias: Facilitators’ Experiences Desiree Anderson University of New Orleans, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uno.edu/td Part of the Educational Leadership Commons, and the Higher Education Administration Commons Recommended Citation Anderson, Desiree, "The Use of Campus Based Restorative Justice Practices to Address Incidents of Bias: Facilitators’ Experiences" (2018). University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations. 2442. https://scholarworks.uno.edu/td/2442 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by ScholarWorks@UNO with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Use of Campus Based Restorative Justice Practices to Address Incidents of Bias: Facilitators’ Experiences A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of New Orleans in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Administration by Desirée Anderson B.A. University of Louisville, 2004 M.Ed. University of Louisville, 2006 May, 2018 © 2018, Desirée Anderson ii DEDICATION I dedicate this manuscript to my warrior, my guiding light, and the fierce queen who has shown me how to be simultaneously strong and graceful, my mother, Barbara. I am what you have allowed me to be. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I want to thank the spirits that have guided me through these past 6.5 years. It has been an overwhelming and wonderful journey that was only manageable through the guidance and grace of those that came before me. Even though this is dedicated to my mother I also want to acknowledge her presence in my life as a constant bearer of strength and support. I want to acknowledge those friends who have held me down from the day we met, Brandon Ball, Ebony Carpenter, Nicole Douglas- Sarver, Megan Karbley, and Angel Harris. You all have always been a force to give me strength when I did not have any of my own. Thank you to Dr. Proite, Dr. Hirschy, Dr. Cuyjet, and Carolyn Barber-Pierre for giving of your time to get me here. To those who came before me and those who will come after me, it is possible and I am living proof. I did it! I would also like to thank the members of my committee: Dr. Brian Beabout, Dr. Elizabeth Jeffers, Dr. Richard Speaker, and my chair Dr. Christopher Broadhurst. Your thoughtful suggestions and continued encouragement are appreciated. Special thank you to my Tulane University and Saint Mary’s College of California colleagues, friends, and students for encouraging me and cheering me on as I ventured through this process. I am forever grateful for you all. Also, special thanks go to everyone who took time to read this work. Your insight and suggestions were invaluable. Finally, there are too many other colleagues, friends, and family to name who encouraged me and supported me by calling me “Dr. D” before I completed the process. Thanks for your support in helping me to speak this degree into existence. iv Table of Contents List of Figures x List of Tables xi Abstract xii Chapter 1 1 Introduction 1 Statement of the Problem 7 Purpose of the Study 9 Chapter Conclusion 9 Key Terms and Definitions 10 Interchangeable Terms 11 Chapter 2 12 Literature Review, Theoretical Framework, and Restorative Justice 12 Literature Review 12 Brief History of Student Conduct 13 Development of Bias Incidents and Hate Crimes on Campus 18 Development of Campus Climate and Culture 22 Theoretical Framework 26 Critical Race Theory 28 Hoekema’s Model of Student Discipline 34 Model of Moral Development and Self-Authorship 35 Restorative Justice 37 Restorative Justice’s Beginning 38 v Restorative approaches in secondary education 39 Restorative approaches in higher education 46 The practice of restorative justice 53 Effectiveness of restorative justice programs 56 Challenges with conducting restorative justice research 59 Summary 61 Chapter 3 63 Research Methods 63 Assumptions of Qualitative Research 63 Phenomenological Approach to Research 64 Role of the Researcher 65 Methods and Design 68 Participant & Site Selection 68 Data Collection 69 Data Analysis 71 Ethical Considerations 73 Summary 74 Chapter 4 75 Findings 75 Program, Participant, and Institutional Profiles 76 Jessica: Large, Public, Research University, West Coast 79 Lisa: Large, Public, Research University, East Coast 80 vi Derrick: Small, Private, Liberal Arts College, East Coast 80 Gary: Large, Private, Christian, Liberal Arts College, East 80 Veronica: Large, Public, Research University, West Coast 80 Whitley: Consultant, West Coast 81 Ayana: Medium, Public, Liberal Arts & Sciences College, Northwest 82 Mary: Medium, Private, Christian, Liberal Arts College, West Coast 82 Patricia: Medium, Public, Research University, Southwest 83 Robert: Large, Public, Research University, Midwest 83 Facilitators Experiences in a Campus Based Restorative Practices 83 Personal satisfaction 85 Professional and personal values 85 Rewarding 89 Integrity of the Model 92 Sufficient time 94 Good pre-conferences 98 Misuse 103 Derived benefits 106 Giving voice and feelings of being heard 106 Increased perception of fairness 110 Restorative practices offer flexibility 116 Building support for a whole school approach 120 Stakeholder buy-in 120 Package it differently 122 vii Doubt remains 123 Whole school integration 126 Summary 133 Chapter 5 134 Discussion and Implications 134 Overview of Study 134 Summary of Findings 135 Discussion of Findings 136 Conventional/retributive justice (dualistic/compatible) 137 Focus (process/outcome) 142 Scope (narrow/wide) 147 Discussion Linked to Theoretical Frameworks 156 Model of moral development 157 Self-authorship 158 Critical race theory 160 Implications & Recommendations for Practice in Higher Education 162 Clearly define the language 164 Pre-conferences as measure for participation 166 Increased visibility and training 168 Implications for Future Research 169 Identity of the facilitator 170 Model of moral development 171 viii Institutional and social structures 171 Campus climate 173 Limitations of the Study 174 Conclusion 174 References 176 Appendices 201 Appendix A. Facilitated Bias Incident Cases 202 Appendix B. Interview Protocol 206 Appendix C. Interview Questions 207 Appendix D. Informed Consent 210 Vita 212 ix List of Figures Figure 1. Categories of and relationships among racial microaggressions 31 x List of Tables Table 1. Participants’ Demographics 84 xi Abstract Student conduct plays an integral role in the functioning of an institution and the moral development of students. As multiple models of student conduct exist, such as the Model Student Conduct Code or a Restorative Justice Approach, it is critical to have an understanding of the various structures and how to choose the most effective structure for addressing the diversifying needs of the campus community. Most college and university campuses use the Model Student Conduct Code (Dannells, 1997) which tends to place a heavy emphasis on authority and is more legalistic which creates an “adversarial environment” (Lowery & Dannells, 2004) on college and university campuses. It can be argued that the traditional student conduct code does not make space for individuals to engage in dialogue and for learning to take place. The focus of this dissertation is to understand the experiences of facilitators as they develop, implement, and use restorative justice models on college and university campuses, which provide a guiding framework for dialogue between victims/harmed parties and offenders/respondents and may be better suited as a means of managing bias and hate-motivated incidents. Restorative practices have been implemented in criminal justice, and K-12 environments and are seen by some as an antidote to overly legalistic campus conduct processes (Karp, 2004). This phenomenological research explores the experiences of individuals who have facilitated a campus-based restorative process and how that experience may impact their view of and the opportunities to improve campus climate through the lens of Critical Race Theory and Models of Moral development. Through this study, conduct and other campus administrators can gain valuable information on how restorative processes are developed, how facilitators gained and maintained institutional support, and how successful facilitators find the process in meeting their goals of student learning. Campus administrators will also gain insight on the perceived effectiveness of xii restorative practices as a tool for managing incidents of bias and the perception of the campus climate. Keyword: Restorative justice, Facilitators, Higher education, Bias-incidents, Campus response, Student conduct, Critical race theory, Kohlberg’s model of moral development, Phenomenology, Qualitative study

Load more