Restorative vs. Punitive Approaches

As the field of student conduct has evolved, there has been a notable shift away from punitive models toward educational and restorative approaches (Karp & Conrad, 2005). The conduct process is no longer something that happens to students, but instead, students are engaged as active participants in their own growth through accountability, reflection, and understanding the impact of their actions.

It is essential to recognize that restorative justice practices are rooted in Indigenous traditions both globally and in Canada (Karp 2013; Leung 1999). Implementing restorative justice practices on campus must be approached with cultural sensitivity and respect. Facilitators should receive training in restorative techniques, and institutions must engage with local Indigenous communities to ensure practices are applied ethically and appropriately.

Many institutional policies were built on framework that reflect colonial ideologies, often neglecting the realities of Indigenous peoples. To explore how these structures have created trauma, see the section below on “How Policy has Created Trauma and its Roots in History”.

Restorative justice is not a trend or a buzzword, it is a culturally grounded approach that has been used for generations as a means of accountability and community healing (Hewitt, 2016). In the post-secondary context, it must be implemented with a deep understanding of its origins, with a commitment to honoring those roots and confronting the enduring legacy of colonialism. According to a Department of Justice Canada report, decolonization and reconciliation signal a shift from ongoing colonialism towards a nation-to-nation relationship based on recognition, respect, and cooperation (Chartrand & Horn, 2016). The report also notes that colonialism has been profoundly destructive to Indigenous kinship practices, and that because Indigenous-Canada relations remain governed by colonial structures, Indigenous communities often cannot fully exercise their historic legal traditions. By embracing restorative justice in a manner that honors Indigenous law and community, campus professionals can support pathways toward resisting, healing, and genuine reconciliation. For more on the impact of colonialism within the post-secondary setting, and strategies for engaging in anti oppressive practice, readers are encouraged to consult CICMH’s Anti-Oppressive Practice Toolkit.

The current landscape of student conduct is increasingly shaped by restorative principles and approaches. Waryold and Lancaster (2020) note that “Student conduct practitioners often live in the ’intent versus impact’ world as they work with individuals and groups to recognize one’s intent may be quite different from the impact that occurred” (p. 24). Take for example Bill, a first-year student who made a discriminatory comment during a group project that unintentionally offended a classmate. While Bill did not mean to hurt anyone, the comment had a real impact. The consequences of Bill’s actions still matter, and student conduct processes aim to bridge that gap by fostering understanding, responsibility, and growth. While the public may still associate the conduct process with adversarial-style hearings and punitive measures such as fines, student conduct professionals have made intentional efforts to move beyond this outdated perception. At the same time, there is often pressure, particularly from those submitting conduct claims, for more punitive responses. Restorative or educational approaches can sometimes be misunderstood as lenient or ineffective. However, restorative justice requires courage, creativity, and in some cases, may include sanctions (for example, no-contact orders or loss of privileges) to support safety and trust in the process. These measures do not negate the restorative nature of the approach, but instead, they can complement it, especially when designed to protect the safety of those harmed while enabling accountability and healing. The focus has shifted toward recognizing the harm caused by certain behaviours and working collaboratively with students to develop meaningful outcomes. This approach is grounded in research and best practices, which demonstrate that it is more effective at fostering accountability and resolving non-academic misconduct.

Table 1

Restorative vs. Punitive Approaches

Note. Karp 2013; Karp & Sacks 2014; Schrage & Giacomini, 2020; Sullivan & Witenstein, 2022; Zehr, 2002

Definition of ’quasi-judicial’:
A quasi-judicial hearing is a formal process, similar to a court proceeding, where administrators (not an official judge) decide whether a student violated policies and determine appropriate consequences. The focus is on fact-finding and discipline, rather than restoring harm (Legal Information Institute (LII), n.d.)