BlogBlog Page

Image from [zotpressInText item=”{6833765:QNB8VQ2C}”]

David Goldberg and I had an incredibly productive discussion on Thursday. It lasted an hour and ten minutes. It was filled with nothing but mutual respect and listening. I shared with David that I would prefer to work transparently than to address the board privately. David shared that he could respect that, hence this open letter to the Board (of a very different kind).

I want to make it clear before I continue that one can be upset with someone, angry with someone, believe that something wrong happened, and still love and respect that person (or institution) at the same time. It’s called a Dialectic – when two opposing things are true at once (it’s the opposite of cognitive dissonance).

I also want to share that I do not believe that there are sides here. There are people which make up a community, which makes up our congregation. Many with different opinions, all hurting. This is not a binary, either/or situation.

One of the criticisms of my first Open letter was that some felt that it contained ultimatums. It did not. When utilizing Robert’s Rules of Order, and following our By-Laws, there is no room to simply call a “town hall.” A special meeting has to have very specific items to discuss, and then to vote on, up or down.

David asked what a Town Hall could look like. One that was filled with respect, and love, and mutual understanding, and shared goals, and a path forward toward healing. David asked me to present my ideas for what that might look like, and how it could be held in a manner that would ensure respect, and to reduce further hurt, instead of causing more harm.

I told him that a model for this very type of situation that we find ourselves in now exists. It is called Restorative Justice. It is used both when there have been serious crimes…but also when communities have felt hurt. It is a way of bringing everyone together, with an outside facilitator or facilitators, so that all (even those accused of wrongdoing or mistakes) can hear and be heard, and then heal [zotpressInText item=”{6833765:QNB8VQ2C}”].

The general principles of Restorative Justice are that:

1. When something occurs where hurt happens, it is because there was, somewhere, a violation of people and obligations.
2. The violations that have occurred create new obligations for all involved (the community, the victim(s), those who have made mistakes or hurt others (intentionally or unintentionally).
3. Justice (or healing) must bring together the entire community, including those who are victims, those who have made mistakes or intentional wrongdoing, and those who are simply members of the impacted community in an effort to put things right.
4. This moves away from someone “getting what they deserve” and moves into all who have been hurt being healed (Tikkun Olam). It also involves those who have hurt making meaningful T’Shuvah.
   [zotpressInText item=”{6833765:QNB8VQ2C}”].

These are all Jewish values. If you would like to read the book on Restorative Justice, you can do so for free here as a PDF.

These meetings are not “free for alls.” They are not a place where fingers are pointed. They must be entered into as a Holy Act (and we are a holy congregation and community). These are a place where both those who have offended, and those who have been hurt (and sometimes those who have been hurt and who have also offended) come together for healing.

I am not putting myself forward as a facilitator. I am not trained in Restorative Justice practices (it is on my long term bucket list, but it’ll be another few years until I get there). There are however many Restorative Justice practitioners and trainers here in Buffalo (through the University at Buffalo School of Social Work, and other institutions and agencies) who could facilitate a Restorative Justice Circle for our congregation.

The goal of this meeting is to have restorative healing.

To be sure it is going to be uncomfortable. Whenever we take a Chesbon Nefesh (an “accounting of our souls”) we have to hear difficult truths. We have to also share difficult truths with others that we love. Just because we have to share difficult truths does not mean that we do not love them. It is because we love one another that this kind of meeting can, and should take place.

My recommendation then would be for the Board to consider a Restorative Justice Circle, with an impartial outside facilitator. After this, we can look at bylaw changes that may or may not be needed. First, though, healing.

References:

[zotpressInTextBib style=”apa” sort=”ASC”]

I am a certified ESL teacher. I set up the IDF Ground Forces Command’s first-ever English as a Second Language instruction and evaluation program (which I ran until I left the Foreign Relations Branch for my final position in the Foreign Training Division). Within that position, I finished as a commander, and as the Instruction NCO for the Foreign Training Division’s Battalion Commanders Course. I have also taught Hebrew as a Second Language (here in the United States), and I have had the honor of being a Visiting Scholar at New York University where I put my MBA and my brain together with other thinkers and creatives to support a common mission.

I am also the sum of my experiences (as are we all). Growing up with learning disabilities, neurological disabilities, mental health conditions, and eventually physical disabilities as I entered adulthood, I am no stranger to the Special Education system. I remember school before the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and I remember school right after it passed. I also remember school many years after it passed (for what little changes there were). I spent the majority of my academic career in Special Education 6:1:1 classes (six students, one teaching assistant, one teacher). Therefore, it should come as no surprise, that this experience has had an impact on my thoughts, feelings, and beliefs when it comes to what constitutes ethical and appropriate course design (though I very much feel that I can support these thoughts, feelings, and beliefs with evidence).

My pedagogy is, largely, based on Universal Design, which is a belief that I hold dear, and a belief that I bring with me into my Social Work practice (and other areas of my life). While Universal Design comes to us (initially) from the field of Architecture (I grew up in a construction family), its tenets are applicable in education and elsewhere [zotpressInText item=”8BT8KDNS” format=("%a%, %d%)"]. Indeed, Universal Design has been enshrined in Federal Law for Special Education over the past two decades [zotpressInText item=”8BT8KDNS” format=("%a%, %d%)"].

I believe that I can make a very strong case that we cannot teach Social Work, ethically, without following Universal Design principles. The very system of seeking (and someone in power providing) “accommodations” is not only ableist, but it runs counter to equity, and trauma-informed principles.

[zotpressInText item=”8BT8KDNS” format=”%a% (%d%)”] writes that “Typically, accommodations are provided upon request. While this represents a significant improvement over situations found in the earlier phase, accommodations tend to maintain inequality” (p. 35). This is, as [zotpressInText item=”8BT8KDNS” format=”%a% (%d%)”] notes, due to a plethora of reasons: delay in receiving accommodations, requiring the creation of special materials, having to go to separate locations to receive accommodations (which is othering), and more.

Simply put, ‘accommodations’ or ‘reasonable accommodations’ may have worked in the late 90s (as we were beginning to transition to Universal Design), but they are hardly the standard-bearer that we want today.

Accommodations violate Trauma-Informed Principles for a variety of reasons. First, because they require the assent of those in power to those who require accommodation for their academic needs. This is not power-sharing (collaboration). Accommodations also do not build emotional safety (leaving the room, having to request alternative assignments, having to identify needs or advocate for accommodations in front of peers, or having it become apparent that one is not participating in the same activities, does not engender feelings of safety).

Accommodations also do not generate trustworthiness within Social Work programs, because there is an expectation that Social Workers uphold the highest level of Social Work Principles and Values as espoused in the Code of Ethics, and a feeling of moral injury can occur when this does not happen, or when conflicts arise.

Infographic by the Institute on Trauma and Trauma-Informed Care (2015)

There are any number of NASW principles or ethical points within the code that could be called upon to illustrate my point, for time and space, we will take the gestalt of striving for equity, justice, equal rights, championing the marginalized, and being inclusive as running themes of the CoE.

So if not accommodations (the model that has been an almost immovable wall at universities) then what?

Universal Design

Universal Design is, by its nature, proactive, whereas, accommodations are reactive [zotpressInText item="JJ8LBV55" format="(%a%, %d%)"]. While accommodations seek to make the smallest amount of changes possible for the smallest amount of students, Universal Design seeks to make all courses as widely accessible as possible for all students, following accepted Universal Design Principles [zotpressInText item="JJ8LBV55" format="(%a%, %d%)"].

[zotpressInText item="FPR3AN4P" etal="yes" format="%a% (%d%)"] note that Universal Design can not only help overcome barriers and create wider access for all faculty, staff, and students, but they also recognize that it can assist countries in meeting their obligations underneath a variety of United Nations treaties.

In their recommendations, [zotpressInText item=”FPR3AN4P” etal=”yes” format=”%a% (%d%)”] share that technology should be leveraged to “support inclusion, rather than letting it become a barrier” (p. 6). Additionally, [zotpressInText item=”FPR3AN4P” etal=”yes” format=”%a% (%d%)”] recommend that Universal Design become a campus-wide discussion and that the framework for Universal Design work to take into account all needs, thereby eliminating the necessity for accommodations.

Universal Design requires not only multi-modal learning options but the anticipation of needs that are unforeseen, as well as ways in which student learning can be assessed across a variety of learning means and systems [zotpressInText item=”9M92Y393″ etal=”yes” format=”(%a%, %d%)”].

Universal Design can be hard (to be sure). [zotpressInText item=”8BT8KDNS” format=”%a% (%d%)”] provides many suggestions for incorporating Universal Design into education (in what was then entering, and now leaving the second decade of Universal Design in education).

I recommend building upon this work through coalition building and interdisciplinary teamwork. While one may be an expert in course design, it does not make one an expert in universal design, and while one may be an expert in Social Work (or a part of social work), it likewise does not make them an expert in pedagogy. Here, course design through collaborative activities such as Business Model Canvasing can bring the necessary experts, artists, thinkers, as well as shareholders and stakeholders together, in order to come up with curriculum and course designs that are truly Universal and Trauma-Informed by nature, and universal/multi-modal by design. By including members of the Disability community (rather than experts on disability), additional barriers and needs can be identified and handled.

Am I seeking the tearing down, restructuring, and rebuilding of entire courses, schools, and universities in order to actually be inclusive and meet our higher values? Yes.

Do I think it’s reasonable? Yes.

Do I think it will be a lot of work? Yes (though likely, not nearly as much as some may fear).

Do I think it will enhance learning, create more opportunities for discourse, and exploration, open avenues for scholarship and research, and innovation? Yes.

Do I think it’s going to require moving beyond a ‘straightforward’ syllabus, or technology or apps or ways of teaching and ‘testing’ that we’ve become used to, or enamored, or comfortable with? Absolutely. Equity takes work.

Closing Thoughts

The Disability community has never made anyone comfortable. We don’t exist to make anyone comfortable. Well behaved crips rarely make history. We, however, have always been on the side of progress, even when we’ve had to chain our wheelchairs, walkers, and scooters to one another to make it happen.

Universal Design is a necessary next step forward for ensuring equity and ethics in education. It starts with multiple learning options and modes of assessment, and expands to transforming programs to meet UDL principles. When combined with a Trauma-Informed Human-Rights perspective, we have an opportunity to make a substantive difference in the lives of everyone who seeks an education. We must move toward a world where accommodations will become superfluous by design.

References

[zotpressInTextBib]

“Utilizing Implementation Science I will endeavor to translate the work of the Center for Financial Social Work for implementation and use at our Behavioral Health Clinic. This work will be utilized to mitigate the transgenerational impact of financial trauma on the communities and individuals that we serve. Specifically, through the development of group interventions, and the implementation of Financial Social Work individual interventions as insurance reimbursable fee-for-service sessions, I will seek to demonstrate Financial Social Work as an Evidence-Based Practice appropriate to be delivered in the treatment of Mental Health to mitigate symptoms of trauma, anxiety, depression, and stress to meet Office of Mental Health Guidelines in achieving and exceeding the treatment plan Objectives and Goals for the Financial Needs PGOI. Utilizing Data from this Capstone Project, I will also demonstrate the Macro Level impact that Financial Social Work and Implementation Science and Technology can have on the 14215 Zip Code.”