Restorative Justice Is a Healthy Innovation at LCPS

Las Cruces Public Schools is implementing restorative justice.

Starting around 2017, influenced by former School Board President Maria Flores, the school sought to reexamine its approach to discipline. Automatically meting out punishments, particularly suspensions or expulsions, wasn’t working for the schools (not really changing any kids’ hearts and minds) or for the community (putting uneducated kids on the streets, when perhaps he could have gone further in his education. Suspension is “the nuclear option.”

LCPS was tired of repeating similar actions with a forlorn hope of getting a better result.

So what IS “restorative justice” as practiced in our schools?

“It’s about teaching kids how to cope with their emotions and understand the harm caused by any infraction,” says Roberto Lozano, Associate Superintendent of Equity, Innovation, and Social Justice. It rests on five Rs: Relationship, Respect, Responsibility, Repair, and Reintegration.

It’s not about “no consequences.” It’s about tailoring those consequences to the specific situation, kids, and infraction, in a way that might improve the situation for everyone, not just put kids prematurely on the street instead of en route to a diploma. And as a kid who was usually in trouble, I’d have hated it. I’d have said, “Punish me any way you feel like, you jerks!” rather than have to sit down and discuss the harm I’d caused. With victims.

Rather than automatically thinking “Punishment!” the teachers learn to consider “restorative practices” that might repair the harm done, restore harmony, and even maybe even reach the root cause of a kid’s misbehavior. The school arms principals, counselors, and teachers with tools for more subtle and sharply focused responses to misconduct – which takes everyone more time and effort, but promises superior results. “This work is hard,” Dr. Lozano warns.

It’s about getting kids to reflect on the harms caused by their own misbehavior. LCPS is doesn’t compromise where safety is concerned, but seeks generally to turn sour behavior into refreshing discussions and, hopefully, kids’ insights into themselves and their conduct. An example: angry mother of first grader complains some “monster” classmate grabbed her daughter’s backside. Assistant principal identifies boy and calls parents, who apologize profusely, explaining the boy went to park with older brother and friends, saw them grabbing each other’s asses in play, thought that was how one behaves. They’ve told him otherwise. Principal schedules sit-down. Parents meet. Mother is still angry, but softens a little when she hears explanation. Then kids join them. Mother breaks into hysterical laughter when she sees how small and clueless the “monster” is.

Strong student-teacher relationships are essential. Building such relationships may not be in the syllabus; but writing it off is like canceling football practices and just playing weekly games because you can’t record a “win” by practicing. Or objecting that changing the spark plugs isn’t driving to Tucson. Strengthening relationships and trust furthers the basic mission by improving kids’ ability and motivation to learn reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic. Studies show kids who are relative comfortable in class learn better. Which makes sense. Don’t we all function better when we’re not too distracted by uncertainty whether we belong, fears that no one cares about us, or emotional upheaval about having been beaten up?

I’m not sure how widely the program is effective. A high school teacher recalled some talk of it a few years ago “from the higher ups,” but really hadn’t seen it in action.

But the idea is good.

                                             – 30 --

[The above column appeared Sunday, 17 September, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website, as well as on the KRWG website under Local Viewpoints. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]

 

A Ringside Seat for Local Democracy

Democracy is a strange and messy process. Plunging into it sometimes leaves me moved, amused, angry, and curious.

I went to Tuesday’s City Council Meeting. I hoped to help rescue discussion of police accountability from the secret committee where Mayor Miyagashima has sent it to die. (Ken’s helped make some great changes over time, but killed others in their infancy.)

Public input, as usual, was mostly the Coalition for Conservatives in Action, berating councilors about rising crime and regarding some letter to NMSU regarding an unpopular and hate-producing speaker. (I lack facts to agree or disagree. I understand protecting the students from hatred, but I’m a pretty strong First Amendment guy. That’s another column.) It’s sometimes tough to distinguish honest anger about real problems from using a convenient way to attack the councilors.

Outside the meeting room, I told some of the conservatives I share their concern about crime, particularly recidivism, but think the Council the wrong target on some issues. Actions these folks demand would be tossed out by the U.S. Supreme Court. State constitutional bail rules bind Municipal Court. Recidivism? If a municipal judge has a mentally incompetent defendant, who can’t constitutionally be tried because s/he can’t assist the defense lawyer, the judge can send the defendant up to Las Vegas; but Las Vegas just says “Yep, incompetent,” and sends the Defendant back. The judge can’t try that Defendant, and can’t institutionalize the defendant to get the help s/he needs.

Sadly, I kept having to explain why I didn’t think abortion was baby-killing, and that sort of stuff.

Some folks (left or right) can’t suspend their political anger long enough to cooperate on matters we all agree need fixing. By contrast, when CCIA’s Juan Garcia called me one Sunday morning, I went to the site of some vandalism and wrote a column on the problem it symbolized. Juan didn’t bother reminding me that he thinks abortion is murder, and I didn’t waste time asking how the hell he could vote for Donald Trump. We saw a problem, sympathized with the victim, and wanted to improve the situation. We still do.

The Council considered a hotly-contested proposal for an apartment complex at 725 McClure, zoned for single-family homes. Planning and Zoning had declined to approve it, and the owner appealed.

John Vaccaro made a great argument for the landowner, noting that the project helped address standing problems such as infill development and more affordable housing. Justin Nations movingly argued the residents’ case, based on safety, inadequate road and infrastructure, and historic significance. I did not immediately know which way I’d vote, if I could.

Sincere citizens argued from their conflicting interests. No one was right or wrong in any clearly accessible way. I felt for the single-family homeowners, recalling how much I disliked the extra traffic Centennial High School caused – and dislike the willfully law-breaking black smoke from Tommy Graham’s old mortuary. But the developer was following some city principles, and, as one councilor said, multi-family homes, more energy-efficient, are the wave of our climate-altered future.

And we need places for workers and old folks with limited resources to live.

“This is a hard one,” two councilors commented. “It’s a really heavy decision,” one added. Finally they rejected the appeal 4-3, but several expressed mixed feelings.

Sitting there reminds me that much of a councilor’s work has little to do with the political spectrum.

                                                         – 30 --

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 10 September, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper’s website (sub nom Democracy and your City Council, as well as on the KRWG website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). (By the way, Wednesday, 13 September, from 4 to 5:30 I’ll be intermittently on KRWG, helping with the station’s upcoming fund-drive. This would be a duller, less enjoyable, less intelligent, and generally less interesting community without KRWG, and its classical music, local and national public affairs programs, and local news reporting. We listen often. If you’re a contributor, thanks! If you’re not, please consider contributing.]

[Regarding the line, early in the column, “Ken’s helped make some great changes over time, but killed others in their infancy,” it’s a fair summary, but oversimplified. In my view Mayor Miyagashima’s long tenure has seen him on the right side of a lot of close calls, but also with his mind slammed shut against certain proposals. I hadn’t yet moved back here when he first ran for Mayor, but I supported him twice for re-election – and would not have supported him had he chosen to run again this year. I like and respect him, but have been as direct as I could be about some strong criticisms, including a couple where I thought the City was violating state law or its own ordinances.]

              

 

On Book Banning

Coalition of Conservatives in Action’s local chair, Juan Garcia, has requested removal from the Mayfield High library of a book, Jack of Hearts and other Parts. We’ll discuss this on radio September 13 with Juan, but here’s my gut reaction:

Book-banning happens when political or military power and intellectual or humanitarian weakness combine. Banning a book, whether the Bible, Lady Chatterley's Lover, or Ayn Rand’s nonsense, admits that in a free exchange of ideas, the book is dangerously persuasive.

Freedom is a compelling idea. Dictators ban books and movies and activists advocating freedom. Equality is so compelling that Rhodesia, South Africa, and southern U.S. states banned works urging it. Some would still ban To Kill a Mockingbird. Christianity, early on and again in Communist-ruled nations in the 20^th Century, was a dangerous idea.

Our country’s bedrock principle is freedom of speech. In New Hampshire town halls or in cyberspace, we are confident enough to invite freedom of discussion. Ideas, religions, and theories, even some we loathe, should be free to contend in the intellectual marketplace.

Banning books states, loudly and clearly, “I’m afraid my views can’t hold up to open competition and examination.” Why else bother?

Jack was written, apparently, to reassure “queer” kids and spark discussion. (“Queer,” like “the N-word” was an epithet that folks now, like Blacks in my youth, turned around and embraced, as a way of saying, “We are who we are – Is Name-Calling is the Best You Can Do?”)

Our government says kids should be treated well, whatever their skin color, religion, gender, or ideas. That doesn’t always happen.

The banning can’t be for containing sex scenes. Jack is less explicit than many young adult books, and in the small excerpts I’ve read, the harsh, hurtful treatment of lovers might discourage kids from suffering such treatment, not attract them.

The banning is for fear of the idea that kids whose sexual preferences differ from the narrow Fundamentalist Christian box of only one male and one female, preferably married to each other, and perhaps preferably of similar skin shades and limiting their activities to the missionary position. It’s reasonable to discourage high school kids from having sex at all; but that horse left the barn decades ago, so the concern must be the nature of the sex.

The banning can’t be an allegation that Mayfield High is teaching kids bad behavior. No class requires or discusses the book. It’s in the library. So are murder mysteries and perhaps Mein Kampf or Das Kapital, but Mayfield High isn’t thereby advocating murder, communism, or persecution of Jews.

The fear seems to be that kids exposed to such ideas will choose behavior or genders of which their parents would disapprove. (Gender doesn’t seem to be a choice.) As a board-member in Tennessee said, the book contains ideas about sex education “that I disagree with.” But that’s the point of reading, and education: to confront those, sometimes. The Supreme Court says “disagreeing” ain’t a constitutionally appropriate ground for banning.

So I why shouldn’t this book be there, for the occasional kid who wants to read it. Few will, so what’s the problem?

To me, the whole commercial U.S. culture, which still objectifies women and still uses sex to sell, is far more harmful to kids than anything in Jack. The pervasive view that women must be “beautiful,” as the dominant culture defines beauty, did me more harm than any book.

                                                   – 30 – 

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 3 September, on the newspaper's website, as well as on the KRWG website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). (By the way, 13September from 4 to 5:30 I’ll be intermittently on KRWG, helping with the station’s upcoming fund-drive. This would be a duller, less enjoyable, less intelligent, and generally less interesting community without KRWG, and its classical music, local and national public affairs programs, and local news reporting. We listen often. If you’re a contributor, thanks! If you’re not, please consider contributing.

Regarding the column, I should note that we’ve scheduled Mr. Garcia as a guest on our community radio show, Speak Up, Las Cruces, 13 September, during the 9:30 – 10 a.m. segment, to discuss his reasons for asking that the book be removed.]

Personally, I figure folks who are not hurting anyone, and are acting consensually, and are of sufficient age and mental acuity to choose intelligently, should have much freedom. Frankly, too, although I am a man who likes women sexually, I have always wondered why, in the abstract, we should not ALL be bisexual: if intimate caresses and sexual congress are fun, and enhance the closeness people feel for each other, why not feel free to enjoy that with lots of one’s friends? Too, overpopulation is one of humanity’s problems, and gay sex doesn’t contribute to it.]

[Finally, a word regarding an earlier column, on the Disqualification Clause of the 14^th Amendment, which arguably disqualifies Donald Trump from running for President. I’ll add a note to the end of that recent column later, but I’d suggested our secretary of state raise the question legally. The New Hampshire Secretary of State has now done so, asking the New Hampshire Attorney-General for legal advice on the matter. That’s an appropriate start toward what we should see, a full and fair airing of the issue in our court system, likely reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.]