On December 6, 2014 misogynic comments including a poll requesting opinions about sexually violating female classmates were posted on the internet by male dentistry students. Within the following days the ungentlemanly behavior of, members of “The Gentlemen’s Club”, male students in their final year of dentistry at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia has been made public. These budding professionals had been posting degrading photographs and violent sexual comments about their female classmates on Facebook. Reaction from the professors, public, and fellow students has been swift and negative. The response of the targeted female classmates has been different. They proposed dealing with the issue through a process of restorative justice. Dalhousie University President Richard Florizone met with the women to seek confirmation that they truly wanted this course of action before complying with their request. President Florizone was tearful throughout his announcement and obviously had been emotionally affected by “listening to the voices of those directly harmed” by the behavior of the male students.
Since President Florizone’s announcement public reaction has been mostly negative. 5600 people added their names to a petition demanding expulsion of the thirteen male students. Two hundred students staged a public protest and several faculty members have requested an investigation. Numerous negative responses have been posted in response to newspaper reports about the restorative justice initiative. There are concerns that the process is inadequate, that the larger issue of misogyny throughout the campus is not being addressed, that the female victims are being pressured into accepting an inadequate process. President Florizone has stated that the process with involve the offenders, the women who have been harmed, and university officials. Decisions made through this process must meet the agreement of all parties; expulsion of the students has not been ruled out.
Restorative justice practice could be a farce. It is possible that offenders see it as an easy alternative to the legal process and enter into it for the purpose of avoiding justice, that community members pressure victims to “cooperate”, or that decisions made fail to bring about effective change in offenders or the community. However, restorative justice can be very effective in bringing about change in offenders and healing in victims and the community. Frequently, as a member of a community justice committee in northern Canada, I would have emotional reactions similar to the protesters of the Dalhousie project as I read police reports of the offenders appearing before the Committee. As the hearing unfolded, I, other Committee members, victims, and offenders would be changed as we listened to each other. Offenders ‘caught’ how their actions had affected others, including their own families, their victims, and members of the community. Victims came to see the offenders as fellow human beings who genuinely regretted having caused harm and who were willing to try to somehow make up for the harm their actions had caused to themselves and to the community as a whole. For restorative justice to work the offenders had to accept responsibility for their bad behavior. President Richard Florizone’s difficulty in speaking after “listening to the voices” of the women dental students was obvious. I have observed how very difficult it can be for an offender to listen to the pain of persons he or she has hurt. Punishment cannot obliterate offenses, resulting pain, or the offender’s responsibility for his or her actions. Victims can choose to stay stuck in anger or revenge or to accept the fact of having been wounded, accept the wound as part of their life and move forward.
When restorative justice works well, it brings about unity and reconciliation in offenders, victims, and the community. It is more likely to bring about true and lasting change in offenders than would legal procedures focused on punishment. It is also a more difficult process that calls forth courage, honesty, and willingness to change. I congratulate the women dental students who have proposed restorative justice and I sincerely hope that all involved participate in a manner which will achieve the aims of the process. Trust, however, is restored more slowly after a serious offense. How long will it take and what must the offenders do to demonstrate that they have changed? How long will it be before the female classmates, university administration, patients, and the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario judge that the male students are fit to be trusted as professional dentists? Perhaps this will be a staged process taking place over time.
We have no guarantee that the Dalhousie restorative justice initiative will be absolutely successful in achieving its goals. Neither can we be certain that harsh punishment will change behavior and attitudes. Much time, money, and effort has gone into the education of the thirteen students and their futures too are a consideration in deciding how to respond to their admittedly disgusting actions. Whatever choice is made affects the future of these men and cannot be made lightly. Nor can the harm done to their victims, the university, and our society be dismissed as unworthy of efforts to bring about healing and restored relationships.
Patricia McKeon, CSJ
