 I started doing work in gender violence, specifically domestic violence back in 1978, when I started working in a shelter, the first shelter that was developed in Little Rock, Arkansas. And over the course of time, since then, I became increasingly unhappy with the kinds of structures we were building, the kinds of options we were providing for victims. So my remarks come out of the feminist justice kinds of things that were echoed, or rather were stated by we, and acted by Mimi and John. I'm critical of the crime-centered kinds of responses that have dominated the U.S. approach and that of so many other countries. And I turn to the story of justice as one of several ways of thinking differently about how we respond to gender violence. So for me, the current feminist debates about how to respond to peer-to-peer campus sexual assault are the latest in an ongoing feminist disagreement about the role of punishment in transforming the social conditions that create gender violence, and maybe even a disagreement about what the social conditions are that create gender violence. And that may be the most important disagreement about which we speak very little. So I think that the benefits of restorative justice, some of the benefits of a restorative justice response are not going to be used to this crowd. So I'm not going to spend a lot of time. I'll just mention that the opportunity for a victim of sexual assault to speak tells a narrative in her own voice to receive validation, as well as protection. And the opportunity for a person who has done sexual harm to have his or her humanity recognized and to receive rehabilitation kinds of options and reparative options. I think those are well known to this audience. But I think if I can add something to this conversation, it would be to talk a little bit about what I am provisionally referring to as an anti-support nation restorative justice practice. And I think that that's exactly the kind of practice that we can do on college campuses. I think that the structure is there. I think the opportunities are there. And I think that the example that happened here at Dohause really illustrates in the most compelling way what those opportunities are. So what do I mean by an anti-support nation restorative justice practice? I mean a practice that seeks to address and change the social supports for gender violence, the social supports, that includes the male peer networks and the structural inequalities that create and maintain much of the violence that we experience. I also mean a practice that's aware of and responsive to intersections of race, class, sexual orientation, sexual identity, able-bodiedism, that frame experiences of victimization, what do I mean by that, that relate to have some relationship to risk of being a victim, to the kinds of victimization one is likely to experience, and to the social meaning that is attached to the victimization, and at the same time shape institutional responses and the kinds of institutional responses and the degree to which bias infects those institutional responses. So I think in the campus context then, an anti-subordination RJ practice has the ability, the potential, and we clearly see this again in the Dalhousie report, to interrupt, name, address peer networks that support male violence against women. So a great deal of the research on campus sexual assault demonstrates that campus sexual assault is highly correlated with membership in peer networks that support misogynistic thinking, hostile masculinity, and gender violence. Coupled with a public health kind of approach that recognizes not only the importance of peer networks, but that also recognizes the link to alcohol and binge drinking and the links between alcohol binge drinking and hostile masculinity and peer networks. A restorative justice response, I believe, can be coupled with that kind of public health awareness and be particularly beneficial on campus. That means also recognizing that there are institutions that have what we might call hotspots, borrowing from criminology kind of framework, for rape or misogynistic culture. I'll just point to one example, so the campus climate survey in the states found that more than 25% of the sexual assault victims who were incapacitated, and that's by alcohol almost entirely, said that their Salem was a fraternity member. So a restorative justice response has the opportunity to move not only from that kind of individual perspective, but then to do that kind of work that needs to be done on college campuses to address the importance of this very lethal kind of combination. And then recognizing that kind of context then can feed into reparative plans. It feeds into reparative plans. You see it here at Delhousie again, in terms of the kind of educational mission that can come from those who do harm, who recognize the changes that need to take place in the institutions on campus and the social networks. It can come in terms of reparative plans that address alcohol problems both an individual problem as well as a collective problem. So that's why. The second way that I think an anti-support nation, RJ kind of process on campus can be particularly meaningful and several people have spoken of this is that such a process has the potential to recognize the importance of intersections. So we know that, for example, recent research that was put out by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, research on nine college campuses, found that there was a much higher percentage of campus sexual assault for non-heterosexual female students than for heterosexual female students. National U.S. research is quite very similar kinds of results, but particularly high rates for women who self-identify as bisexual, CDC finding, for example, an astounding 46% of the women in their study who identified as bisexual experiencing sexual assault in their lifetime, 46%. Very little of what's going on in the national response to kinds like sexual assault in the U.S. is looking at these kinds of particular risks. Very little of it is looking at the risk for indigenous women or looking at risk for women of color. National research in the U.S., for example, finds that Hispanic, multiracial women and Native American women have much, much higher rates of sexual assault as well. But what I mean by an intersectional approach is not just recognizing differential risks, as important as that is. What I mean is looking at the extent to which the campus climate around race, the campus climate around sexual identity, sexual orientation, campus climate around class, something we talk, which is very little about in the U.S. context, it doesn't exist. Right. I mean, looking at the way in which the campus climate along all of those axes intersect with the campus climate around sexual assault. So it is about who's vulnerable, but it's also about what are the restrictions and the barriers to providing assistance, what are the risks that accompany disclosure, what are those differential risks. We desperately need to do that and I think RJ is a vehicle for doing that. Oh my goodness. Wow, five to zero. So let me just mention really quickly just two concerns I have going forward. One is what, maybe only a lawyer, I don't know. But I'm really very concerned about the fact that statements that are made to a Title IX officer, all the evidence that's collected by the administrative process, in the U.S. is admissible in a criminal case, it's admissible, potentially admissible as statements against interest or as party admissions in civil criminal cases that follow, these are not privileged conversations. And I worry about that in the RJ process. There are some fixes, but we don't have them yet. And I also worry about capacity building. I am concerned that most of our campuses really don't currently have the staff who are ready and able, even if they're convinced, to do restorative justice. And I'm not sure how wide spread among restorative justice practitioners there is an awareness of the issues around gender violence. So I see capacity building as a significant issue.