What is shame’s role in discipline?

I was in Portland the 28th and 29th of June for the 8th annual NW Justice Forum.

While there is much to discuss regarding the material and interesting people that I met, I will focus on two pieces.  The first will be a discussion by Aaron Lyons of the Fraser Region Community Justice Initiatives.  This discussion was a deep, thoughtful exploration of how shame, empathy, worthiness and vulnerability interplay around harm and punishment.  The second piece (which will be a different post) will be regarding how dealing with real trauma from violence is qualitatively different than other types of harm and needs to be treated differently; this includes using different facilitative tools.  This second topic was facilitated by Alan Edwards.

Often people ask, “What role does shame play in addressing harm?”  First, let’s define shame.  According to Dr. Brene Brown: Shame is the intensely painful feeling or experience of believing we are flawed and therefore unworthy of acceptance and belonging.  So where does this “unworthiness” fit into discipline?  Aaron argues that shame is exactly what we don’t want to feel.  In fact, if we want to change behavior, we need to promote acceptance and belonging – the opposite of shame.  Promoting connection in discipline is essential for those that have harmed to feel a desire to make amends. Aaron makes the case that shame and empathy are opposite ends of an emotional pendulum.  In this way, empathy is the experience of connectedness, or the experience of deep and true understanding and inclusion.  

The conversation moved on to conclusions about what to do after we understand this.  If shame and empathy are related and on the same spectrum, then what?…  Restorative Justice can use vulnerability to move an experience from one of shame to one of empathy.  This is the beauty of Restorative Justice.  RJ creates the safe space to be vulnerable and then experience empathy.  By using this process RJ facilitators don’t “teach” empathy but instead provide the space to experience a true emotion.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Washington State Supreme Court case: What is a Lawful Search by a School Resource Officer?

What is the role of School Resource Officers (SROs) is at the heart of this case.  SRO are generally full commissioned uniformed officers of the law, as in this case.  At the heart of this case is the discussion of what rights students have regarding searches as well as clarity on the difference between school administrators and SROs.  Both Federal and State law protects persons from “unlawful searches and seizes;” his means a government actor needs a warrant supported by probable cause to conduct a search unless an exception applies. The school search exception to the warrant requirement is well established under both Washington and federal law. The two thresholds in this case for conducting a search are “reasonable suspicion” (school exception) and “probable cause.”  “Reasonable suspicion” is a lower burden of proof, the full definition is something like “there is reasonable suspicion that something has happened.”  While on the other hand “probable cause” is more stringent and is “that a reasonable and prudent person (officer) believes that a crime has been committed.” The current ruling and searches regarding school administrators determined that they have a lower burden of suspicion in order to conduct a search.  The question that arises from this case is “what role is the officer in?”  Is he a administrator or is he a police officer?

He is… a Police Officer and there for always held to the higher standard when arresting or searching suspects.  (according to this ruling)

I don’t want to discuss the details of this case, as no one is suggesting that what the student did was ok.  Possessing marijuana and carrying a BB gun on to school grounds is a SERIOUS offense.  But the ramifications of this case does set out to limit or change and hopefully clarify the role of SROs.  Throughout the nineties and into this the new century SRO have had a growing presence.  This presence has not always been a constructive one.  I don’t believe that police officers are bad people; I also don’t believe that ticketing and arresting students for misbehavior is an effective or health approach to school discipline.  The criminalization of school misbehavior has disenfranchised youth across this state and the nation.

The Texas Apple Seed Project reported that SROs in Texas wrote nearly 300,000 tickets to youth in school in one year!

Our problem is not as severe as that, but it still needs attention.  Looking forward I would recommend the reduction of police officers in schools entirely.  There needs to be a better way of dealing with harm in the communities and our schools.  The question becomes how do we engage youth in our schools and communities?  Instead of pushing our youth away from school, instead of pushing the into the streets, through these isolating and exclusionary policies we need new models of engaging youth.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment