There’s a part of Oakland government called The Oakland Fund for Children and Youth (OFCY), operating within the Children and Youth Services Division of the Human Services Department. OFCY is the city’s largest grantmaking program, offering millions of dollars annually for programs targeting youth between the ages of 14-21.
One of the programs funded by OFCY is called Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth, or RJOY. It’s current budget is $225,000. Its mission is “to increase mental health and wellness” for “Bay Area folx” [sic]. According to its website, “RJOY is unapologetically Afrocentric and committed to practicing restorative justice in fidelity through an anti-racist, anti-biased lens that pays homage to the indigenous roots of the practice.” Most of RJOY’s “identity-focused” programs are designed for BIPOC “communities of color,” many of which partner with the Oakland Unified School District. One of the most popular is the “Black Male Circle,” a “healing space for Black men and Black male teens.” There is no comparable group for, say, White or Asian males or teens; the Black Male Circle “uses restorative practices” in its meetings.
You hear this word “restorative” and its associated concept “restorative justice” a lot in Oakland. OUSD even has its own “Restorative & Racial Justice website.” The core principle of restorative justice sounds simple enough: “restorative justice involves bringing together victims, offenders and sometimes community members to collectively address the harm caused by a crime. The goal is to achieve accountability, forgiveness and healing — thereby allowing all parties to move forward.” The criticisms of restorative justice, however, are seldom address by OUSD, by RJOY, or by the City of Oakland. It’s been pointed out—and I agree—that teachers should spend their time teaching, not running rap groups and encounter sessions. (This is especially true given the low academic standing of so many Oakland schools.) Another criticism is that restorative justice takes no account of punishment. A seventh-grader, for instance, who punches his teacher in the mouth deservedly needs to be punished; to equate him with his victim and let the two of them debate in front of an audience doesn’t seem fair or equitable to the majority of us.
Another huge problem in restorative justice is that agreements that are reached are seldom followed through. In a typical case, the perpetrator—the attacker—agrees to compensate the aggrieved—the victim—in some form or another, but there’s no process to make sure this ever happens, and when the episode evaporates in time—as it will—the attacker is left conclude that he’s gotten away with something because his accusers are idiots. There’s no evidence that I’ve seen showing that restorative justice actually prevents unbalanced young men from committing further acts of violence. How is it supposed to do that? Am I, as the victim, expected to forgive my assailant, instead of to demand justice? Exactly why should that be?
That Oakland programs such as RJOY are inherently racist is obvious. Our tax dollars—yours and mine—are being fed into an official city ideology that undermines public safety in Oakland, that discriminates against races other than Black, that imposes a philosophy many of us do not agree with, and all this happens with virtually no input from the public. Race-conscious bureaucrats have created this situation. Oakland will never turn the corner on race relations until its government stops their obsessive focus on race, which presumes that Black youth and men never commit criminal acts but are merely the victims of a racist society, and that all we have to do is to “talk out” our differences so we can understand each other. The truth is, there is no “understanding” to be had about violent behavior. It must be called out, prosecuted, and punished, not treated merely as a mistake but as the crime it is.
Steve Heimoff