Bridging Policy and Practice

Recently, the Graduate Division partnered with the Student’s Advocate Office to host a roundtable titled “Bridging Policy and Practice: Implementing Restorative Justice within Academic Policy.” Convened out of ongoing conversations about student needs, academic policy structures and campus climate, the event brought together staff, faculty, students and practitioners across UCB and UCSF. The event was moderated by Graduate Division’s Director of Graduate Academic Conduct and Climate, Burcu Tung, PhD, FHE Postdoc Hallie Smith, PhD and Student Advocate from Berkeley’s Student Advocate’s Office, Maureen Kang.

Below are the bios of the roundtable discussants, as well as a comprehensive summary of the points discussed during the roundtable discussion, written by Erika Weissenger and Burcu Tung. 

Across the discussion, a shared understanding emerged: Restorative justice is not just a softer penalty or an alternative punishment track. Roundtable discussants described RJ as a relational, values‑based approach that centers harm and its impacts, the needs of those harmed, and meaningful accountability and repair by those who caused harm, often with the broader community involved. Discussants highlighted several crucial practices:

• Setting the Stage: Taking care to establish the right conditions for a successful circle.
• Active Listening: Prioritizing the importance of hearing all perspectives.
• Community Involvement: Incorporating the broader community into the process.
• Power Dynamics: Naming the power dynamics played out by different participants.

Importantly, RJ was framed as both responsive and proactive. Responsive work addresses specific incidents of harm; proactive work aims to build relationships and shared norms before harm occurs.

Several panelists underscored a central structural problem in higher education: We rarely build relationships before something goes wrong. To remedy this, proactive, or “Tier 1,” RJ work matters. Community‑building circles for incoming cohorts, regular reflective spaces within labs and departments, and classroom practices such as community agreements create a foundation that is available when conflict arises.. 

At UCSF, for example, Maria Jaochico’s Office of Restorative Justice Practices has developed community‑building circles where new graduate cohorts sit together with their program directors and program administrators in their first month. They talk about values, about who they are as emerging scientists and professionals, and about what kind of community they want to build. When conflict later arises, these early circles give everyone something to anchor to: “I remember that you said trust and relationships mattered to you”.

A central theme in the roundtable was the collision between bottom‑up, relational practices and top‑down, rule‑driven systems. Here, Erika offered a concrete example of how policy culture can begin to shift from the ground up, drawing on her work at the Goldman School of Public Policy (GSPP). She described how the school created a shared syllabus template that gives faculty common language and options for key classroom policies, including the use of GenAI and responses to academic misconduct. Rather than forcing every instructor into a single model, the template offers a menu of options—for example, several different AI policies a professor can choose from—and pairs them with consistent framing language. 

Consistent framing and language is also crucial in disclosing some of the potential pressure points of the RJ Process. Dorit emphasized the importance of being mindful of reporting obligations of a facilitator ahead of time. When a participant begins to share something that enters that territory she feels that it is the obligation of the facilitator to remind the participant – even if they have to interfere mid-sentence – that there may be a reporting trigger coming up in their share, and that they can choose whether to continue or not. 

Julie noted that people may be harmed by actions that don’t necessarily constitute policy violations. Through her work within the RJ Center, she gives individuals an opportunity to work through such instances. She noted that it isn’t always possible to have the person who caused harm and the person who was harmed sit down together. In such instances, she brings the community together to talk about harms, impacts, and needs. Once individuals begin listening to each other, a range of different impacts and needs can be articulated and addressed with specific plans to prevent repetition.

Graduate students occupy a uniquely complex position in the university. They are simultaneously students, researchers or instructors, and often employees whose funding, advancement, and reputations depend on faculty who may also be involved in a conflict. Maria described this as a profound structural vulnerability: graduate students may fear retaliation, loss of opportunities, or even visa and immigration consequences if they speak openly about harm.

In that context, it is not enough to declare an RJ process “voluntary.” As Maria emphasized, facilitators must name the power dynamics explicitly, not ask participants to pretend those dynamics disappear once everyone sits in a circle. She noted “We start by explicitly naming that the power dynamic is there; we don’t try to assume it can be set aside. A process is not truly restorative if a student feels they cannot safely decline participation, or if opting out carries unspoken penalties. In practice, Maria’s office spends significant time assessing readiness and voluntariness. Sometimes, RJ is not the first or primary option; safety assessments, ombuds involvement, or formal processes may need to come before any restorative work on relationships. 

In other cases, an impact circle or “fishbowl” format allows those most affected to speak while leaders mainly listen and witness, rather than responding or justifying decisions in the moment. All of these approaches depend on substantial preparation and one‑on‑one conversations before people ever sit together.

Even in supportive structures, participating in RJ demands real emotional courage. Matt described students who come into his office wanting someone to fix a problem on their behalf. The idea of sitting down—possibly with the very person who harmed them—can feel overwhelming. On the other side, students who have caused harm may be steeped in shame and fear of judgment, especially in a context where academic success is paramount and failure is stigmatized. For Matt, the answer begins with values. He spends time exploring what participants care about most: fairness, integrity, community, growth. Many are drawn to RJ because it resonates with who they want to be. Framing the process as an expression of their own values—and as an opportunity to take ownership of their story—can make the risk feel more purposeful.

He is also candid that RJ requires time and emotional work. It is not necessarily the fastest route to resolution, but it can be the most meaningful. 

Faculty and staff may be skeptical, overextended, or wary of opening up emotionally in professional spaces. Maria noted that much of this resistance stems from not knowing what a circle actually is. In her experience, the most effective strategy has been to pair education with direct experience – for example, putting senior leadership into a circle before giving them a formal presentation. Once people have personally felt what a well‑facilitated circle is like, it becomes far easier to make the case to departments and programs. 

The roundtable discussants pointed toward several directions for the Graduate Division and the broader campus:

• Normalize Proactive Practices: Implement early cohort circles and classroom community agreements.
• Embed Restorative Options: Integrate RJ resources into everyday tools, such as syllabus templates and policy statements.
• Maintain Transparency: Be honest about what RJ can and cannot do within existing academic structures.
• Seek Collaborative Spaces: Continue to host dialogues between student advocates, staff, and faculty.

More broadly, RJ can be treated not as a discrete program, but as an expression of deeper commitments to dignity, accountability, and belonging. Its promise in graduate education is to create spaces where conversations about harm, power, and responsibility can finally happen—and to ensure they are met with practices capable of holding their weight.