 so far, who's not fairly general counsel for Dalhousie, got caught up in a situation that caught and introduced restorative justice. In December, and for self-propanation of the date, he sat down and realized that he had a situation. It was widespread, and it went well beyond individual conflict. That was important to deal with. And I sat down, and most of the women wanted a situation where the men perform and they could all run together. So she told me, but I knew we were doing marriage on campus, but nothing ever reached my level because it was being managed openly there. So I never knew what it was about, and what is this? So she explained, I said, OK, that's not a big list, so let's give her a go, or what does it look like? So I learned through the dentistry process. So I am not speaking for messengers to not work in the university department. They've not served it well in all situations. I am positioning the plaintiffs against respondents. They level the room for the full appreciation of the context within which the behaviors are taking place. And as somebody who carries the institutional head around them, they might have also marginalized the university's role to that of the keeper of the process rather than an active participant in helping the community shape the culture department they want to create. Educational and formative outcomes tend to be respondent focused on community development. Situations involving multiple respondents, such as one face, can lead to multiple proceedings, multiple rounds of no work. They can also lead to delays and the likelihood of conflicting outcomes. This means that the universities are missing incredible opportunities and incredible teaching laws to lead their communities in shaping the working American environment. At Dalhousie at the time of December 2014, we were lucky enough, lucky enough, that our policies allowed for very broad, flexible range of informal resolutions. We were able to, in facing the Facebook incident, weigh the restorative justice process into that environment. We were then able to link that process with the professionalism and academic progression process through the faculty, which enabled the RJ report and the outcomes, individual outcomes from the restorative process to be incorporated as part of a professional remediation. That is what enabled, that is the structure within which we were able to create a safe place for the good work of general teaching. So obviously, what happened, what did we do with this challenge that faces the other? What came out of the ashes? I'd like to say a Phoenix, but we faced a lot of internal opposition at Dalhousie to the restorative justice process. It was not widely expected and expected. Next day, it's more like a battered seagull striving to be a Phoenix. One of our biggest challenges, actually during the process to step out of it, is it wasn't widely understood. Minister Whalen talked about having an elevator pitch. What was even hard for us to come up with, speaking of those talking points. Very theoretical, very difficult for people to understand, so it made it hard for us to explain the purpose. So what are we doing at Dalhousie's then? I'm just going to share with you what our next steps are from a policy framework. We decided to put together a team of people comprising academics from law, health professions, sociology, probably some management, some diversity experts, administrators who have experienced students. And we've decided to take apart all of our behavioral policies. Most universities will have sexual harassment policies, anti-discrimination policies, sexual assault policies, codes of student conduct. We decided to get together and create an overriding policy, or an overarching policy, where the university sets out expectations of its community members. Because at the end of the day, universities or communities, faculty, staff and students are its citizens. I think as an institution we have a responsibility to set out what we expect our citizens to do and how we expect them to conduct themselves. So our vision is that this policy would cover faculty, staff, students, contractors, anybody on our campus. And as they said, this policy would, or two times, policy would, would outline the foundation of principles that everybody in this room would agree with. And someone that we've started to develop, and others that are still working on the list, diversity, inclusiveness, care, respect, dignity, cultural competence, is of standard equality. We think by setting these communities standard into the most voucher-based line within which other processes can be developed. And then from a very boring policy framework, we would then outline a series of procedures, different options. At this point in our lives, we'll never be able to get away, or at this point, we'll never be able to eliminate a rights-based adversarial option. Sometimes it's the only way we can go, particularly if you're trying to exit someone from the university. But we think within that, we'll be able to create a range of options, not relegated to the informal resolution, or some kind of hierarchy resolution, but an array of possible processes based on restorative principles. The details of that may not work out. And again, speaking for myself, not the group that's developing the policy. The policy itself has to serve as an educated tool about restorative processes. It's just talking to other people with displays over. They just think it circles another ton or something. They don't really focus on the development. I have to admit, when I first met Jen, and she was telling me that I looked two. I mean, I understand what you're saying, but what do you say to each other about this? Now I have to explain what you're understanding. But people are mostly in that place, so we have to educate everybody in the university's community about this. So one thing that I think is critical is you'll have to figure out which options, in particular, the situation calls for. First of all, the university should be the decision maker for that, which may sound a bit... I'll explain that in a minute. The factors... In outlining the factors, people will learn to understand why so they'll be able to do things and give them those of them. What are the needs of the victim? What are the circumstances of the rock dealer? What is their relationship to each other? Are their students living in residence? Is it faculty versus students? Who else in the community might be an impact? How serious is the behavior? What's the nature of the harm caused? All of the... Does the electro-rock dealer take responsibility? Does the victim want to participate? All of those things that everybody in this room knows are the important elements of restorative justice. But by articulating those in the policy, people will finally understand why you care and why you're doing what you're doing. And in my perspective, it is important that the institution take that role and lead that. It doesn't mean administration. It means that some of the institutions say, okay, I'm going to look at these factors. I'm going to work in a safe environment with the people affected to try to figure out what the process is. So my view is an initial assessment should be undertaken in relation to that. Should that information be necessary to understand the various factors should be done without prejudice-based so that we can use it in a formal proceeding if it goes that route. Zoom forward here. The other elements of the policy again lack of understanding of the process making sure that people understand what the possible outcomes are without being too overly restricted in dictating what the outcomes agreements can be at the end of it clearly articulating what the facilitator's role is, which is the facilitator's role is to develop the process with the participants. Again, the institution facilitator to lead that. I had a whole bunch of work I was going to say but I can't. Obviously articulating a clear basis for informed consent but I think most important this policy is a great idea, it's really cool but it cannot occur in a vacuum and it cannot occur without consensus around what the underlying principles are what the community standards are and it can't occur without appropriate resources. I agree with that in order to have skilled people be able to manage the work and not just to do I'm talking about at the end of the day when there's conflict that hasn't been able to be involved. Ideally the work that James do and the security, the work that HR can develop in relation to introducing historic practices there and student life which is already relegated to historic practices all of that has to be happening at the same time. A policy like this sets the standards for teachers to be used.