Please consider downloading the latest version of Internet Explorer
to experience this site as intended.
Tools Search Main Menu

Quadcast transcript: Rochester implements restorative practice

September 7, 2018

Jim Ver Steeg:            You are listening to QuadCast, the official podcast of the University of Rochester. I’m your host, Jim Ver Steeg. This week we’re talking about restorative practices. Generally speaking, restorative practices are a method for strengthening relationships, building trust, and helping with connections within a community. But to talk a little bit more about that, we have a great group of guests. First I’d like to welcome Dean Beth Olivares, who is dean for diversity in arts, sciences, and engineering.

Beth Olivares:            Hello.

Jim Ver Steeg:            I’d also like to welcome Kristin Doughty, who is assistant professor of anthropology and restorative practices, restorative justice scholar.

Kristin Doughty:        Hi, thank you.

Jim Ver Steeg:            Thank you for coming. And we also have two consultants and restorative practices coaches, Duke Fisher and Toni McMurphy. Duke and Toni, thank you for joining us.

Toni McMurphy:        It’s great to be here.

Duke Fisher:               Thanks for having us.

Jim Ver Steeg:            So I’d like to start with you, Toni, and Duke, to tell us a little about restorative practices. What are they, and what do people need to know about them?

Toni McMurphy:        Well, restorative practices, really, it’s a term that encompasses and represents a philosophy, but also a set of tools, perspectives, and disciplines. So for example, in the training that we’ve been doing recently, we really invite people to become fully present, which doesn’t happen often with busy lives and long to-do lists. We invite people really to lead with their humanity, and authentic dialogue. So while we all have roles and responsibilities and we don’t want to lose sight of those roles and responsibilities, what’s also true – there’s a way that we can enter a conversation, human being to human being, to seek to understand, to listen, deeply.

You’ll notice that even by design, the pace and the rhythm is a little bit slower. In authentic dialogue, we joke and say that we incorporate the NPR pause [laughs]. So, there’s information, and then there’s space that allows that information to settle in. The other thing that I think is representative in restorative practice is in the work that we’ve been doing is the importance of circles. And I’ll invite Duke to share about what that means, and what that looks like on campus.

Duke Fisher:               I think restorative practice can also be called circle work. You’ll hear a shorthand for it. And I think it reflects that if we try to work through these issues in community, we have better results. And so it’s where – think of conversations I try to have at my kitchen table. We fall into our regular patterns. And often those aren’t helpful. And so it’s about assembling the right people to be in the room to speak to each other, to make something significant happen.

Jim Ver Steeg:            And how big are those circles, typically? Do they vary in size? Is it usually a small group?

Duke Fisher:               Well, we use the term a lot, like lightly, because the circle might be two people, and I think there would be people who would tell me that that’s a line, not a circle. So, you have two people, where we might do restorative coaching, where you talk and use some of the principles that Toni was mentioning to support each other on a one on one conversation. That might happen with a student who may be struggling with how they’re fitting in on campus, or if they feel like they’ve impacted their living environment negatively, or their classroom negatively.

So, it can be one on one. And it can also be a rather large process. I would say that classic four to eight is fairly standard for let’s work through something together. When you start saying who should be here, who should witness this conversation, like who should hear what you want to say, who do you want to have hear what you want to say – I think those start to cluster pretty quickly. And then Toni and I have been part of processes where you may have circles that involve several hundred people, and it’s concentric circles.

And so it may be something happening on the inside, and then a tier just beyond that inside circle, and then another tier. And there’s strategies that are set up to make sure that the tiers are listening, and communicating with each other.

Jim Ver Steeg:            Beth, I’m hoping you can give us a little context and talk about why we’re using restorative practices at the university, and maybe be a little bit more in depth as to what we’re hoping to accomplish with it.

Beth Olivares:            Sure, so bringing Duke and Toni here, after having consulted with a group of faculty, including Professor Doughty, who you’ll hear from in a moment, and the deans in arts, sciences, and engineering, as well as graduate students and others in the department of brain and cognitive sciences, where we’ve had some concerns over the last year or so, it became clear to me that what the community was asking for was a process, a way to deal with harm that had been created, and had impacted the community that was non-punitive, non-investigative, non-legal, and allowed people to say what they had experienced, and work together to figure out ways to understand each other’s experience, but also move forward, and to create a community in which everybody can actually thrive.

So, the beginning of this journey with restorative practices happened in February with our decision to bring Duke and Toni in through the Skidmore Project on Restorative Justice. And they quickly started working with members of the community in brain and cognitive sciences. And I should say that initially there were – was predominately in the arena of identifying harm, and mapping harm, and assembling group of people who would self-assemble to talk about things that had happened in their department, or in their world. And have spent many, many, many hours with many members of our community that include some but not all of the complainants in the lawsuit.

Have included possibly all or almost all of the faculty in BCS, many of the graduate students in BCS, as well as senior administrators, including folks in the president’s office, the president of the university, all of the deans in AS&E, the faculty senate executive committee, and members of affiliated departments as well.

Jim Ver Steeg:            So, it sounds like there’s been some pretty considerable buy-in for this process.

Beth Olivares:            Correct. So, there’s two aspects to the process. The first one that I’ve been describing has really been the harm identification, and dealing with interpersonal conflict, and all of those things. And that really took up quite a lot of Duke and Toni’s time for the first month. That work is ongoing. The BCS department has adopted these practices in a very holistic way. Greg DeAngelis, who is the chair of the department, has said that these processes have helped enormously in dealing with the difficult waters that they have to navigate.

The second part of this is – Toni alluded to earlier – is that we’ve been doing training. Because in addition to actually doing this kind of work, the idea is that we should train our community in the practices so that we don’t have to use them as remediating harm, but actually harm prevention. So we have 12, we’ve done 12 four-hour training sessions over the summer. We’ve had over 150 people participate in those. And overwhelmingly positive results, positive reactions. And many – so from people who literally this is their second week on their job, to people who have been here for four or five decades.

And many of whom, almost all of whom, have expressed that this is something that’s absolutely needed in the community, and they want more of it. So yes, there has been a – I would say widespread buy-in. It’s been a quiet process. Because we don’t – it’s again, non-coercive. There’s an invitation out to the community. Whoever shows up is the people who participate. We don’t make anybody do it. It’s not required.

Jim Ver Steeg:            And it’s all inclusive. I think you pretty much ask everybody, right?

Beth Olivares:            That is correct.

Jim Ver Steeg:            And I want to say, before I forget, if you want to learn more about some of the restorative practices happening at the University of Rochester, you can go to the website, which is Rochester.edu (slash) college (slash) diversity (dash) restorative-practices. And Professor Doughty, before I talk to you, I just want to turn back to our consultants, Toni and Duke. And we hear both restorative practices and restorative justice. And I’m wondering if you can help us understand what might be the difference between those two ideas.

Toni McMurphy:        Well, restorative justice is one slice in the restorative practices pie. So, it’s a specific way of applying restorative practices when there has been harm. But really one of the things that I am always in awe about in these situations is how the other becomes humanized.

Jim Ver Steeg:            Kristin, I’d like to turn to you now to offer some perspective. I know some of your scholarship is around restorative justice, restorative practices, and I know that you do a lot of thinking around lasting change and structural change. So can you tell us a little bit about your work and how you have come to understand restorative justice, and restorative practices?

Kristin Doughty:        Yeah, thank you. I’m delighted to be part of the conversation. I’ll begin by saying that the research that I do that relates to this is really twofold. One piece of work that I’ve been doing that I began when I started graduate school, so it’s been going on for about 15 years, is my work in Rwanda, where as a political and legal anthropologist, I was looking at post genocide reconciliation, where the Rwandan government put in place a new process that was really explicitly a combination of restorative and retributive practices to deal with genocide suspects.

And so that’s the base of much of my work, sort of into these areas. And then I more recently have become involved in looking at issues around mass incarceration in the US, and I’m involved with a group here at the University of Rochester of faculty in Warner School, in education at the medical center, and in art, sciences, and engineering. And we’re calling ourselves the Rochester Decarceration Research Initiative. But where we’re looking to think about how issues of mass incarceration, which are related to carceral and punitive practices, shape life in the region.

So, my perspective on these comes I think from both of these domains. In terms of thinking about systemic and structural change, to your question, I think maybe the best way I can say it is in thinking about – I’ll name like three shifts that I think are really important that restorative justice and, in my mind, both restorative justice and restorative practices would impact. One is that restorative justice, I’ll put that in quotes, as I think about it as an anthropologist, looking at the literature, at the diversity of practices across many regions in Africa and many regions outside the US, are really about I’ll go to Duke’s comment there.

I just jotted it down. It should reach all of your community. It’s about refusing exile. It’s about refusing the idea that you can take someone who has done something bad, or committed a crime, in the language you would use, and just send them somewhere, be it prison, be it elsewhere, and to define your community as just the ones you want to have remain. Restorative approaches assume that there is no exile, that everyone has to be there from the beginning to the end, whether that’s at the level of family, at the level of a community.

So, taking that practice on board actually involves redefining community. Community no longer means just a harmonious, handholding, Kumbaya. But community means the people with whom you engage, warts and all. And I think that mind shift that goes along with really embracing the idea of restorative practices is a really structural and systemic one. The other piece is to reframe how we think about punishment and accountability. There’s a sense that I think that in a lot of popular perception that restorative means no punishment.

But I think really that’s only if we think of punishment as being exile, or cleaving off, or particular forms of punishment that are really just artifacts of the US legal system and how we all therefore think about punishment, or how we think about how we raise our children into these practices. But if we think about accountability being a much deeper process that links to the kinds of things that Duke and Toni have been saying about accountability to other people, about acknowledging harms, about all these other pieces, there can be deep accountability even absent the kinds of punishment that we might have historically thought about.

So those two mind frame shifts I think are really foundational to how we then implement structural change. Whether at the level of universities, policies, and practices, or at the level of more broadly our whole justice system. And I think it goes also to this issue of listening that Duke and Toni have been talking about. I think that really beginning processes that are deeply about listening is also a structural and systemic type of change.

Jim Ver Steeg:            Two things that you said really stand out for me. One is the idea of sort of reimagining or redefining community. A lot of folks tend to believe automatically that community is a good thing. But sometimes membership in that community can be exclusive. And that’s not always a good thing. The other thing, and Beth, maybe you can speak to this, it’s this rejecting the notion of exile, and how that plays into what some of our efforts here.

Beth Olivares:            So, Kristin’s quote about when exile is not possible, how do we be a community, how are we a community? Those conversations have happened on multiple campuses, and multiple layers across the country. And here as well. And it became really clear to me that we needed to figure out a way to pull together as a community and figure out, what does that mean, what does accountability mean, what does that mean for a front-line staff member who has to handle the paperwork to get students advisors? What does it mean for the policies and procedures that we have here at the university? What does it mean for the way that we interact with each other? So, and I also think that this series of practices, this exercise, this work that we’ve been doing, is really very much in line with the kinds of things that President Feldman has been talking about, with the culture of respect  and the new meliora values.

Those sessions were specifically designed as Duke and Toni have said to provide their participants with a set of tools that they can use to create their own circles, to maybe behave differently in their departments, or in other ways. But they’ve also really been small group discussions, about the ways in which the people who are in the room are tethered to the university. Like what, why are you here, what binds you to the institution, what’s precious about being in the institution?

And then hearing each other say those things out loud has a really powerful effect. And then the next question is, well, what are the challenges you see at this institution? And so we get pretty deep into those conversations as well. And I’ll say that across all of the conversations, all the trainings, the concerns that people have are very much echoed in if you’ve read the report of the commission on women and gender in academe, if you’ve read the report of the commission on race and diversity.

The kinds of things about the ways in which we’re perceived, this institution, folks here, perceive that we don’t hold each other accountable, that we’re not willing to have hard conversations, that sometimes we take the easy way out and we ignore things that oughtn’t be ignored, that we treat each other with less than the deep listening that this practice asks us to do, and by doing that we dehumanize each other. And so, pulling us into circle, and having these conversations, we all see that many of us share the same preciousnesses around being here at the university, but also some of the same concerns.

So that’s then the next question is how does that make you feel? Sometimes it’s heaviness. Sometimes it’s sadness. But often it’s hope. Because we’re all in this together. The idea is we can pull together and make this a better place.

Jim Ver Steeg:            And one of the things we talked about before we started the show was to make sure that we acknowledge that sometimes we’ll be speaking in very general terms. Sometimes rather deliberately. Because it’s important to the process. It’s important to the participants that we maintain privacy and confidentiality with the things that are discussed. That of course doesn’t mean that I won’t try to get you to talk about some things [laughter].

So, I guess what I want to know is because so much of this is about accountability, and you’ve had some central players involved in these conversations – I’m looking at Toni and Duke, the consultants – has anything stood out to you both that was either surprising or illuminating or enlightening about the process here? Is there something, a memory you have of any of these workshops or trainings that really stands out?

Toni McMurphy:        There are many. I would say that some wonderful moments which illustrate the ways in which people are finding value in these practices such that they are organically emerging. So, we have spent a significant amount of time in BCS. And recently organically there were calls and requests to come and support them in convening their own circles. And they just know and they’ll say well I think at this point, with this topic, we need a talking piece now, where every voice is heard, that the person with the talking piece has the floor.

And of course, anyone can pass. Even last night, we were having a conversation planning a circle for this afternoon. And we asked what thoughts do you have about potential rounds, which are the prompts when we go around the circle, and people respond to a question. And so, there were several ideas. And then this person said, well, for this one, I think we should do a diminishing round, which means that the piece keeps going until not just once around, but as many times around as needed, for people to share what’s on their mind and in their hearts. And so, we were almost giddy.

We were there on FaceTime going yes. This is what it’s all about. And just hearing people say things like what we create here in four hours with complete strangers, why don’t we have this in more spaces, in more department meetings, in more faculty meetings, in more classrooms? Why don’t we have this in more homes in which we live, in our personal lives? And it’s exciting to see the a-ha that people have in terms of what is truly possible when we come together in these ways.

Duke Fisher:               I want to tell you about everybody. I’d love to blow the whistle on everyone I’ve met. Because it’s those kinds of conversations. It’s a guilty pleasure that I have that Greg would have said – he’s the one that used the terminology. And I said oh really, you’re going to use our terminology? You want me to start winging science terminology around? It’s lovely to see that at some levels the conversations that they’ve having begin to justify the use of the methods. And to have a group of scientists say let’s put this formal structure into our conversation? These are people who speak to each other every day, and have meetings every day.

And the fact that they’d be willing to even consider using a different method I think is astounding. That the storylines that have my attention are – we’ll assemble to talk about a formal tension on campus. And there are systemic issues that have to be addressed. So, you have people trying to use their personal voices and talk about their own experience, and then say how does that impact things like the Me Too movement? How are we going to manifest that here on this campus? I mean these are high level discussions.

And we spend enough time with people that sooner or later, it gets to the core of people’s experience, and in one particular meeting, we have a staff member who was talking about one of the conflicts that they were facing, and they began to share that these people share lives with each other, they raise children together, they attend each other’s weddings and funerals. And [crying] they just talked about how the conflict between them had impacted relationships with children, and it was sort of an aside, where they said do you think we’d be able to convene a circle to have our families discuss this? And the answer is of course.

Jim Ver Steeg:            So at a deeply personal level for some folks then.

Duke Fisher:               Sure. Sure. And that they value the conversation enough to say I trust this with my children, or I trust this with my family, is particularly affirming.

Jim Ver Steeg:            It’s wonderful. And I would be remiss to say – to not say that we have communal principles that we tend to focus on, one every year, and this year is responsibility. And Kristin, I’m sort of looking at you. You mentioned accountability in restorative practices, in restorative justice, and can you talk a little bit about the role specifically of accountability and responsibility in restorative practices?

Kristin Doughty:        Yeah, I mean I’ll go back to a little of what I said before, which is to begin with, we have a sense that accountability – when we’re thinking about punishment, being accountable for one’s deeds, gets defined as suffering pain for them in a way that makes you an example for others, that sort of becomes a notion I think that many have written about in the ways that we think about punishment within sort of cultures of punishment in the US legal system. I mean it takes a lot of different forms.

But when we think of punishment as accountability, that’s really not the same thing. And if we can delink those in some ways, and then rethink accountability as ways of remediating harm, as ways of doing – giving back in different ways. I mean as an example, again, the Rwanda case is very complicated, and I don’t want to draw false parallels. But in the wake of the genocide with these Gacaca Courts, the Rwandan government made a new set of laws, and the part of the rationale was that people who confessed to crimes of genocide could get their actual sentence, their prison sentence, reduced by half, and could do community service.

We obviously have community service built into our models in the US. I’m not saying this was an uncontested decision, or policy for the Rwandan government, but the idea that people – that’s a form of accountability is what I’m trying to say. Doing – helping rebuild houses and rebuild roads and doing forms of community service is a form of accountability. And so we can think about ways. And again there’s lot of ways to analyze it. But we can think about ways of giving back, of both at the level of relationships, at the level of material practices, there’s lots of different ways that accountability I think can be defined.

And I think one of the things I said to Beth early on about this is I feel our institution should be accountable to people who are – who continue to be here, and who are at varied levels of power within the institution. And there’s a lot of people at the university who have very different vulnerabilities, and voices, and I think a practice like this, that is designed to include that wide range of people from – some of the people that I talked to at the very beginning of this, who are sort of asking for these processes, were undergraduates and graduate students. And I think the university is accountable to them as well.

And so at least for me that’s part of that accountability to acknowledging people differently placed in relation to power, and how we think about the move being constructive, not just punitive, is really important.

Jim Ver Steeg:            That strikes me as particularly salient in higher education, where there are so many different levels of power, and authority. And so Beth, I turn to you. How are we thinking about how this fits into a higher education model? I’m assuming there are people that from all different levels in some of these circles and some of these groups. So how does that present itself here, at Rochester?

Beth Olivares:            So, in the trainings that we’ve had, it is an open invitation. And the groups have been very – it’s whoever registers, comes. And we specifically do not deal in titles or anything like that. Everybody gets a nametag with their first name on it. And the first initial of their last name. we do introductions by not your title, but the essence of what you do. So, we have a lot of people who are problem solvers, and a lot of people who are story tellers, and a lot of people who are breakers down of barriers and things like that.

So in a few of the responses, the evaluation responses that I’ve gotten from folks, who might not be seen as powerful people in the hierarchy, who are incredibly honored, they say, to have been invited, or allowed to participate, and I follow up with them and say no, absolutely, this is for everyone, this is a leveler of hierarchy.

Jim Ver Steeg:            And I know we often don’t speak about an end goal or an end result of restorative practices, but I turn to Toni and Duke, and so I’ll ask you, how would you frame what’s happening now, and how do you think things might go? What’s coming next?

Toni McMurphy:        So, as I alluded to earlier, I think one of the most exciting things is that as people are exposed to – and they actually experience up close and personal what restorative practices look like, feel like, they start to identify ways that they can incorporate this into their meetings, their classrooms, to discuss concerns, to make a decision, to approach strategic planning in a department. How can we come together? That’s one of our circles later today. In a way that we’re really mindful, that we’re transparent, that we get things on the table so we can examine them from different perspectives.

And then people have talked about again taking these practices home into their personal lives. And there’s a point at which in the training people – we have said how many of you engage in difficult conversations? And every hand goes up always. And so what are tools that help us navigate those more effectively, with more transparency, with more grace? And we have people write – what is it that you need or want from others to have these difficult conversations, and what is a strength you bring?

And so we wind up with these incredible paper plates spread all over our centerpiece with people talking about things like I want respectful candor, I want patience, I want empathy, I want to be heard, I want to really be heard. And then we start imagining what could it look like if we actually embrace this and go forward? And we acknowledge at the end of the training each of us can impact the environments in which we work and live in these ways by showing up differently. It paves the way for other people to respond in kind.

Duke Fisher:               The practitioner in me wants to tell you that there’s a path. Because you asked about end goals. So how do we get there? It’s about assembling the right people in the circle. So that you can collectively understand what we’re working on. Who do we need in the circle so that we know – we have the nuanced understanding of what this is. We create safety so that they can actually speak their truth. Then once we have that, we develop through the lens of harm – how has this been difficult for you? One of the most important questions that Toni and I ask is – what’s hardest about this?

And that encourages people to do that self-exploration. How is it hard for me in this moment – is a very important lens. And that leads us directly into what needs might you have? And it’s very personal. There may be – think about the last time you demanded something. I want her fired. They need to be removed from the church. Whatever demand you’ve just made. And the question Toni and I will often ask is what need would that meet? Why would that be important that you get that? What do you get if you get that?

And once we have those needs-based words, then we can give them an opportunity to say – how do we meet those needs? You turn to the circle. It’s not just on one person. And they look at each other and say what would we do? Because there’s a mantra that it’s a hot mess in a lot of these circumstances. And I think that what the circle says above all else is, we can do this well. We can do this well. And it gives them an opportunity to lean on each other, folks that have impacted each other, and say we have the expertise in the circle here to make sure that we not only deal with the situation, but we address the conditions that created this situation.

So that we’re not just finding one solution, but we’re talking about how do we change things so it doesn’t happen again, or so that people are safer, or more comfortable, or more ready to act like a community as they go forward. So, it may seem like it’s very broad and it’s very emotional, and the answer is yes, it is. And the trainings are about uncovering the mechanics of how does it happen, the mechanics of compassion, the mechanics of responding to each other. There are methods – philosophies and methods that are specific to the work that we do that can support communities. They can learn it, and they can provide it for each other.

Kristin Doughty:        I was just interested in building on that point. Because this language of community and coming together keeps coming up, and I wanted to speak to that a little more. I often joke I’m sort of allergic to the language of community only because – and that goes to this point of redefining how we even think about it. And I think that’s a really important piece of this process, because as we – I think what’s implicit in what we’re all saying here is that the coming together doesn’t mean silencing dissent, and coming together doesn’t mean coming together and pretending that everything is perfect and we all get along all the time.

So, the language I think that Beth’s been saying, and that I heard from both Duke and Toni, of we come together and we rebuild community – I just want to reiterate that that is a community that is in theory doing the hard work of actually having these conversations, not about sort of a false coercive part to it. And there’s been a lot of scholarship, and a lot of critique, around notions of coercive harmony within restorative practices. So, I think that’s an important thing to point to. There are examples – there are places where restorative practices, restorative justice can in fact be deeply disenfranchising for people with less power.

If they are sort of forced to consent to mediated solutions that they don’t actually want. So, there are certain examples of that. And I understand why people bring that concern to thinking about these kinds of practices. But I think it’s really important to not use that to, at least in my own view, to disallow the effort to begin with these forms of models, and also to the point that people are making, this idea of the deep listening. I keep coming back to that.

But I think for my own experience as an anthropologist doing sort of ethnography of my own campus, that issue of information needing to flow from the bottom upwards is something that this process can actually – and these sorts of practices can help to structurally fix, to implement at the level of policies, and at the level of culture change, and the level of meetings within departments and programs, etcetera, if information is really – if people feel comfortable talking, and that information gets taken seriously, and moves upward, that is itself in my mind a form of real change. And the kind of thing that could prevent problems from happening more in the future.

Duke Fisher:               So I’m glad you raised this. And one of my favorite talking pieces was the gift from another practitioner that’s an ampersand. The and sign. And as it’s passed around the circle, it reminds that we’re not looking to meet one need, but meet the needs of the individuals in the circle, and everyone is encouraged to put voice to what needs they might have, what harms they’re experiencing, what needs they might have. And it’s a process of this need and that need, rather than this need or that need. And you can see how that plays out between structures and individuals, between power sources and those that are laboring under the power source.

And so the idea is that we try to raise it up in a way where every voice is heard. And that’s why that structure is so important. That’s why that piece travels around the circle. Everyone answers the same question. And we all speak to each other rather than someone speaking at the circle.

Jim Ver Steeg:            Beth, I want to turn to you and ask you to put your official dean for diversity hat on. But it strikes me that as we’re talking about this, we’re talking about elements of inclusion, and equity. And I’m wondering how you consider restorative practices in your role for dean for diversity in arts, sciences, and engineering.

Beth Olivares:            Sure, thank you for that question. I believe that this set of practices can help us with all of the kinds of inclusion work we have to do. So responding to bias related incidents, responding to any kind of harm, preparing students to be able to actually speak their truth, whatever that truth is, and have other people know how to listen to those things, to those experiences, is not something that we have often been able to model. And I think – so I think back on student protests, and town hall meetings, where students and others scream and yell and they have real truth, real pain, and real experiences to share.

And it’s never been clearer to me that those things actually get heard in the way they need to be heard. So, moving from that model of waiting until things boil over, and the conversations are only being had among a few people behind closed doors, into a space in which we all have the capacity to listen and to speak the truth, however painful, and work from there. Seems to me to be the right way to go.

Jim Ver Steeg:            So, what’s next for our efforts in restorative practices here on campus?

Beth Olivares:            So, we’re in the process of preparing a proposal for a series of additional trainings to happen during the year, as well as a continuation of the work that that’s holistically emerging from, from the faculty and the graduate students. So more to come on that. Lots more will happen. But we don’t want to let the cat out of the bag too soon.

Jim Ver Steeg:            You know I have to try.

Beth Olivares:            I know [laughter]. I appreciate it.

Jim Ver Steeg:            And I want to remind folks that if they are interested in learning more about the restorative practices efforts at the University of Rochester, they can go to Rochester.edu (slash) college (slash) diversity (dash) restorative-practices. So, Dean Beth Olivares, thank you so much for joining us.

Beth Olivares:            Thank you so much.

Jim Ver Steeg:            Professor Doughty, thank you for joining us.

Kristin Doughty:        Thank you so much.

Jim Ver Steeg:            Duke Fisher and Toni McMurphy, they are coaches and experts in restorative practices. Thank you so much for being here.

Toni McMurphy:        It’s been great.

Jim Ver Steeg:            For the University of Rochester QuadCast, I’m Jim Ver Steeg. Our sound engineer is Joe Hagen. Thanks for listening.

[End of Audio]

Category: Quadcast