Responding to hate incidents on university campuses: benefits and barriers to establishing a restorative justice programme

Q2 Social Sciences
Liyana Kayali, M. Walters
{"title":"Responding to hate incidents on university campuses: benefits and barriers to establishing a restorative justice programme","authors":"Liyana Kayali, M. Walters","doi":"10.1080/10282580.2020.1762492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study examines staff and student perspectives of the use of restorative justice approaches to respond to student-on-student hate crime, hate incidents, and hate speech on university campuses. It draws on qualitative data collated over a one-year period, during the design and establishment of a restorative programme entitled ‘Restore Respect’ at two UK universities. Highlighting examples of students’ experiences of prejudice and hate across the two universities, we outline some of the key barriers to reporting associated with conventional university responses, as well as staff and student views of establishing a new restorative approach to addressing incidents. While early-stage evaluation revealed certain cultural and institutional barriers and limitations to the establishment and operation of a restorative programme, the majority of staff and students viewed it as an effective way of addressing hate-based conduct that would provide greater opportunity for more positive interventions and outcomes. The paper concludes by arguing for a renewed effort to move beyond standard institutional responses to student experiences of hate and prejudice at university through the adoption of restorative, needs-centred approaches.","PeriodicalId":10583,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Justice Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10282580.2020.1762492","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Justice Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2020.1762492","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study examines staff and student perspectives of the use of restorative justice approaches to respond to student-on-student hate crime, hate incidents, and hate speech on university campuses. It draws on qualitative data collated over a one-year period, during the design and establishment of a restorative programme entitled ‘Restore Respect’ at two UK universities. Highlighting examples of students’ experiences of prejudice and hate across the two universities, we outline some of the key barriers to reporting associated with conventional university responses, as well as staff and student views of establishing a new restorative approach to addressing incidents. While early-stage evaluation revealed certain cultural and institutional barriers and limitations to the establishment and operation of a restorative programme, the majority of staff and students viewed it as an effective way of addressing hate-based conduct that would provide greater opportunity for more positive interventions and outcomes. The paper concludes by arguing for a renewed effort to move beyond standard institutional responses to student experiences of hate and prejudice at university through the adoption of restorative, needs-centred approaches.
应对大学校园仇恨事件:建立恢复性司法方案的好处和障碍
摘要本研究考察了教职员工和学生对使用恢复性司法方法应对大学校园内学生对学生仇恨犯罪、仇恨事件和仇恨言论的看法。它借鉴了在英国两所大学设计和建立题为“恢复尊重”的恢复性课程期间,在一年的时间里整理的定性数据。我们重点介绍了这两所大学学生的偏见和仇恨经历,概述了与传统大学应对措施相关的一些主要报告障碍,以及教职员工和学生对建立新的恢复性方法来处理事件的看法。虽然早期评估揭示了恢复性方案的建立和运作存在的某些文化和制度障碍和局限性,但大多数教职员工和学生认为这是解决基于仇恨的行为的有效方式,将为更积极的干预措施和结果提供更大的机会。该论文最后主张,通过采取恢复性的、以需求为中心的方法,重新努力超越标准的机构应对学生在大学中的仇恨和偏见经历。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Contemporary Justice Review
Contemporary Justice Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信