(PO-176) Restorative Justice Process in Dental Education
Sunday, March 20, 2022
1:00pm – 3:00pm EST
Location: Hall C
Author: Amisha Singh, D.D.S. – Director of Diversity and Inclusion Programming, University of Colorado School of Dental Medicine Author: Eric Mediavilla, D.D.S. – Associate Dean of Student Affairs, University of Colorado School of Dental Medicine Author: Crystal Ridgley, M.S. – Associate Director of Admissions, University of Colorado School of Dental Medicine Author: Tracy L. de Peralta, Ph.D. – Sr Associate of Academic Affairs and Innovation, University of Colorado School of Dental Medicine Author: Denise Kassebaum, D.D.S., M.S. – Dean of Dental School, University of Colorado School of Dental Medicine Submitter: Tracy L. de Peralta, Ph.D. – Sr Associate of Academic Affairs and Innovation, University of Colorado School of Dental Medicine
A restorative justice approach to addressing student behavior in higher education views wrongdoing as more than just breaking the rules, but also something that potentially causes harm to people, relationships, and the community. Therefore, in this context, a restorative and just response to wrongdoing should include addressing the harm that it invokes.
Objective: The aim of this pilot was to describe any success or limitations of a restorative justice process implemented to address events that could possibly be interpreted as student misconduct at the University of Colorado School of Dental Medicine.
Methods: This process included the implementation of the four pillars of restorative justice: 1) the inclusion of all parties involved in the process of creating restorative remedies, 2) engagement of all parties to encounter the needs which emerged, 3) supporting all parties involved while making amends for the harm that the potential misconduct caused, and 4) reintegrating all parties back into their shared community. By description, data was collected throughout the implemented process for later reporting mechanisms, which were used to describe the strengths and weaknesses of the reparative justice process.
Results: Outcomes to this process included enhancement of communication between parties, affinity spaces for those who experienced harm, community building, promotion of student-acknowledgment and actively supported accountability concerning the unprofessional nature of the potential misconduct, as well as a mutual understanding of the harm, while respectfully moving forward together in a common community.
Conclusions: The experiences described using fundamentals of restorative justice to repair the harm done in possible student misconduct have informed processes in dental education for a new approach to better address student affairs issues.
