As is always the case, I appreciated yesterday's comments by readers. I find it helpful to hear of the personal experiences of those who follow this blog, as well as observations and reflections.
On the day Nancy commented on the use of restorative principles in the education system two teenage boys met and apologized to one another in the small Ontario town of Keswick. This was significant because one of these young men used a racial slur against the other, who is of Korean background, then struck him. He retaliated with a martial arts punch which broke the nose of the instigator. For some inexplicable reason the boy of Korean background was expelled and charged by police, while the other boy received only a minor expulsion.
Since then 400 students walked out of the school in protest, the school board reviewed its initial decision, and the police will probably withdraw criminal charges. What do you know -- common sense. The students who protested should be commended, and so should the two young men who have made their peace. As I said yesterday, this is a principle encouraged by major religions and other people of good will.
The board admitted that taking the restorative approach from the outset would have been a better idea. Who can argue.
On the day Nancy commented on the use of restorative principles in the education system two teenage boys met and apologized to one another in the small Ontario town of Keswick. This was significant because one of these young men used a racial slur against the other, who is of Korean background, then struck him. He retaliated with a martial arts punch which broke the nose of the instigator. For some inexplicable reason the boy of Korean background was expelled and charged by police, while the other boy received only a minor expulsion.
Since then 400 students walked out of the school in protest, the school board reviewed its initial decision, and the police will probably withdraw criminal charges. What do you know -- common sense. The students who protested should be commended, and so should the two young men who have made their peace. As I said yesterday, this is a principle encouraged by major religions and other people of good will.
The board admitted that taking the restorative approach from the outset would have been a better idea. Who can argue.
4 comments:
Bullying at school is such a big issue and one of the problems is the idea that the victim has no right to defend himself. I understand the logic of this but when someone pushes or punches and the victim passively allows that boundary of personal safety to be crossed it really only fuels further bullying. What do you think about the policy now set in place that does not allow a bullied child to defend themself? The idea is that the child should tell someone in charge, which as we all know only escalates the violence. I have come to think that if you tell a child that someone else has to defend them you are taking away that child's rights. I would be interested to know what others think. I think that restorative justice is the way to go but somehow it seems to get mixed up with the idea of passive resistence which may or may not be in a child's best interests. For example, should a child also passively resist an abductor? IT seems to me that there is grey area here.
The challenge always is distinguishing between self-defense and retaliation. De-escalating violence and seeking reconciliation are demanding and sometimes unattainable goals, but consider the alternatives. In Keswick the lives of two young men have been derailed for weeks.
I have notice that in Nova Scotia two high schools have been closed because of gang type fighting which is probably related to race. It happened while we were living there.
Jesus' encouragement to "turn the other cheek" didn't seem very practical when our children were small and being bullied, but being at war with peers didn't either.
This Christianity business is hard!
I'm of two minds here David, because there is a trend of bullied children committing suicide, because the only advice they received was to ignore the bullying(turn the other cheek). Ignoring the bullying makes them a more popular target, and reporting bullying often has devastating consequences. I can see a place for restorative justice in this area but I think it may too idealistic. I think it has to go hand in hand with preventative education. I haven't read much about this so I can't really speak from an educated point of view, but I think like anything else it has to be viewed from a wide variety of angles and handled with care, because not everyone concerned will have the other's best interest in mind.
Believe me, I don't condone bullying, nor would I ever feel that bullying should be ignored. Bullied children often feel desparate, but rarely are they able to find resolution by themselves. Often it is bigger, stronger more popular children who bully them.
Seeking resolution to conflict in any relationship is essential. Couples going "toe to toe," families in fights, gang warfare, nations battering each other...how much evidence is there for this behaviour solving problems?
It's interesting that in Keswick the boys eventually talked, apologized, and have expressed a desire to move on.
Post a Comment