A Campus Adaptive Resolution Model Targeted at Yellow-Zone Behavior (Cultural Breaches)

Abstract

The usual campus responses to identity-based discrimination (gender, race, ethnicity, and pregnancy, for example) fail in addressing less severe forms of identity-based discrimination by mimicking adversarial processes found in the criminal justice system, focusing on formal investigation processes to address alleged violations. We advance a model that repairs yellow-zone behavior (cultural breaches) and argue that higher education campuses must look beyond traditional compliance-only responses toward an adaptable resolution model (ARM) grounded in restorative and mediation practices. An ARM model can mitigate and reduce yellow-zone behavior (cultural breaches) and related institutional betrayal and addresses harmful power dynamics.

Keywords

yellow-zone behavior campus violations adaptable resolution cultural breaches restorative practices higher education

Introduction

Campus-based equity practitioners have come to understand that the usual campus responses designed to mitigate identity-based discrimination (gender, race, ethnicity, and pregnancy, for example) are inadequate in addressing less “severe” forms of these incidents and the power dynamics they embody. These less severe incidents, make up the majority of the work in campus-based equity, diversity, inclusion and compliance offices and encompass the bulk of cases overseen by campus-based equity practitioners (such as Title VII and IX) offices (Rennison, 2018).

Yellow-zone behavior is a term that campus-equity practitioners have come to describe that behavior that does not tend to rise to the level of a campus policy violation. It is not clear who first coined the term but reference can be found to it in the work of K-12 occupational therapist, Leah Kuypers and Winner (2011), who describes four zone regulations, rooted in cognitive behavioral therapy, as a framework for identifying feelings and actions. Kuypers and Winner (2011) zones are used by parents and teachers to help children self-regulate, identify coping strategies. In the healthcare world, a yellow-zone is considered a warning or high-risk zone and a likely precursor, that is, if the patient is not properly treated leading to life or limb threatening casualties and adverse outcomes (Cleveland Clinic, 2021).

Cultural breaches are intrinsically tied to yellow-zone behavior because they often flow from that “yellow-zone stage” of frustration or high-risk and represent inappropriate or damaging behavior that is not severe enough (according to campus policy) to be sanctioned. This yellow-zone behavior encompasses a very broad degree of behaviors, some of which are cultural breaches. We prefer and use the term cultural breach (es) in this work to describe the high-risk (yellow-zone) behavior as it may manifest on campus so as to avoid any association with implicitly racial color or anti-Semitic metaphor tropes such as “Yellow Peril, Yellow Terror, and/or the Yellow Specter.”

We argue that higher education campuses must look beyond a traditional compliance-only model and adopt an adaptable resolution model (ARM) that is grounded in restorative and mediation practices. Unlike its adversarial compliance-only counterpart, and limited use of informal resolution and adaptable models, an ARM model grounded in equity, diversity, and inclusion will reduce cultural breaches, address harmful power dynamics, and mitigate the impact of such behavior.

Before outlining the elements and benefits of an ARM approach, the remainder of this article is structured as follows. First, cultural breaches are defined and described. We then discuss the commonly used approaches to dealing with problematic behavior and their limitations. The paper then turns to the proposed adaptable resolution model (ARM) approach including legal considerations and benefits of such an approach.

A Cultural Breach Defined

A cultural breach occurs when one acts outside respected norms of behavior and flow from the yellow-zone behaviors described by Rennison (2018). These cultural breaches make up the bulk of the work faced by Title VII, Title IX and campus diversity, equity and inclusion offices, and infrequently meet the threshold for a campus policy violation. Acknowledging and addressing cultural breaches that occur in a university setting is critical.

Freyd and colleagues are credited with developing Betrayal Trauma Theory (BTT) which puts trauma in the context of interpersonal relationships with trust or dependency (Freyd, 2008). According to Freyd (2008), this interpersonal relationship creates a unique vulnerability to traumatic betrayal. When Freyd and various colleagues studied betrayal, they did so within the context of sexual assault and how this impacted anxiety, dissociation, and trauma-specific sexual symptoms (Smith & Freyd, 2013). Gómez (2016) further developed the notion of betrayal trauma theory to cultural betrayal trauma theory (CBTT) that occurs when a member of a cultural minority has uniquely vulnerable defenses to the betrayal of (intra) cultural trust. When a person is violated by a perceived in-group perpetrator, the victim’s (intra)cultural trust is also betrayed. CBTT places trauma in the context of interpersonal relationships with trust of dependency creating a unique vulnerability to traumatic betrayal (Gómez, 2016, 2019). We took these two definitions (BTT and CBTT) to develop the term cultural breach.

Cultural breaches take away from the very purpose of higher education—research, new discoveries, preparing the next generation of great thinkers and society workers, and advancing societal change. Cultural breaches lead to and expends valuable resources that could be applied for more productive mission-critical purposes.

Cultural breaches are also costly, serious, and impact victims. In Fiscal Year, 2018, for example, the EEOC filed 199 lawsuits against employers accusing them of unlawful employment discrimination. In that same year, EEOC staff resolved 136 of the lawsuits filed that year and previous years for a total monetary recovery of $22.5 million. By the end of Fiscal Year, 2018, the EEOC had resolved 90,558 charges of discrimination and secured $505 million dollars for litigants with an average cost to settle a faculty grievance at $250,000 (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2019). Beyond a dollar cost, however, more often, the cost and impact include doing nothing, which may result in the continuation of the behavior and the person or persons on the receiving end of that behavior feeling as if the institution betrayed and failed them.

Practitioners have long been aware that identity-based discriminatory incidents that fall under Title VII share similarities with other traumatic experiences, such as domestic violence and rape (Bryant-Davis & Ocampo, 2005). As many scholars have noted, for example, for ethnic and racial minorities, racist incidents can also be conceptualized as a type of (societal) trauma (Bryant-Davis & Ocampo, 2005; Díaz et al., 2001; Gómez, 2019; Nagata et al., 2015). Practitioners have also come to realize that university policies created to adjudicate Title VII and Title IX cases have not helped in this regard. Indeed, they have been created to and focus on meeting compliance standards as set out by the Department of Education and the Office of Civil Rights (Anderson, 2020; Wang et al., 2021).

During the Obama–Biden administration, the standard that campuses needed to meet to find for a sexual misconduct/non-discrimination policy violation was preponderance of the evidence. The Devos 2020 rules introduced a new evidentiary standard to determine Title IX cases that gave post-secondary institutions the option to choose between the Obama-era standard (preponderance of the evidence) and the new standard that requires survivors to meet a higher burden (Wang et al., 2021). Alongside these new federal rules is the requirement to provide for a live hearing and cross-examination for Title IX cases. Post-secondary institutions must also now apply the same evidentiary standard in all sexual harassment cases, for example, including faculty and staff cases. It was difficult enough under the old evidentiary standards to find a policy violation let alone to adjudicate a cultural breach. The 2020 rules have made it even that more difficult.

Cultural breaches are common, take many forms, rarely result in a formal investigation, and they emanate from yellow-zone behavior. These are the breaches that are unlikely to produce a policy violation using a campus model compliance-only formula. For example, data from one medium-sized urban university campus for academic year 2019–2020 shows the campus-equity office logged 260 reports of various alleged identity-based discrimination. Of these 260 reports, 96 (37%) were internally coded by the office as sexual misconduct with the balance (164 or 63%) falling under “other protected class discrimination.” Of the total 260 reports, only 13 cases were referred to full investigation¹. And of those 13 referrals, only three cases were moved to a formal Title IX or Title VII investigation resulting in two campus policy violations (Viveiros, 2020). In a compliance-only format, the cases that do not move to formal investigation are closed with no further remedies offered to the reporting parties. Often, the equity office will assist and/or refer these to the school or college. Sometimes that might involve some additional conferencing, discussions, and/or further education. More often, however, it includes doing nothing and opening the potential for the behavior (cultural breach) to continue and for the person or persons on the receiving end of that behavior, as we noted above, feeling as if the institution betrayed and failed them.

Existing Approaches Addressing Cultural Breaches

Universities attempt to address problematic behavior and cultural breaches in several ways. This section outlines compliance approaches, informal resolutions, and adaptable models used most commonly.

Extant Compliance-Only Models

Higher education models Title IX and Title VII policies and practices on the same adversarial processes found in the retributive criminal justice system and relies on a formal investigation process to address alleged policy violations. These offices are usually separated from the traditional diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices tasked with reducing power dynamics at an institution and creating equity and a sense of belonging for constituents. A problem with this retributive, or compliance-only model is that it does little to reduce the harm and impact of the cultural breach, does little to address the damaging power dynamics and does little to repair community impact and harm. A compliance-only model leads to unaddressed consequences and results in lasting impacts.

The primary way that universities address cultural breaches and alleged policy violations is from a compliance-only approach. The current compliance-only model on which university policies are based stem from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 which provide protection against sex and other identity-based discrimination. (Title IX, 1972)

In this model, the case is taken under the banner of an investigation (see footnote 1), witnesses are formally notified and spoken to, the complainant and respondent are interviewed and receive notice of an investigation and a decision is rendered based on whether a policy violation can be established and sanctions, if applicable, are administered. College and university campuses have long been required to have an investigative process in place to deal with Title VII and Title IX complaints.

Limitations of the Compliance-Only Model

Adjudicating incidents of misconduct on college campuses is complex and difficult. Universities are trying to improve compliance-related procedures by dedicating greater resources to complicated investigation and adjudication processes. However, the goals of a campus adjudication process—utilizing a neutral, fundamentally fair, and unbiased approach to determine (1) what can be proven under the school’s evidentiary standard, (2) whether what happened entails a policy violation, and if so, (3) what outcome should be assigned—is often incompatible with the needs of harmed parties. This is particularly true given that lengthy investigations sometimes require a harmed party retell their story during multiple phases of a campus adjudication process (essentially retraumatizing the victim-survivor), including, in many sexual misconduct cases, during direct cross-examination. Moreover, as a result of the increase in campus sexual violence reports and student disciplinary proceedings, male students who were found responsible for sexual violence began filing lawsuits claiming that they were victims of anti-male bias (Orcutt et al., 2020).

Compliance-only models are rife with limitations. First, compliance models tend to fail to meet the needs of harmed parties (Orcutt et al., 2020), and lead to feelings of institutional betrayal. Second, compliance models are criticized for being biased against, and stigmatizing respondents (Anderson, 2020; Bell et al., 2020). Third, the compliance-only model with its investigative approach is based on retribution and offers no repair or training options for those involved in the cultural breach and fails often to deal with the power dynamics between the aggrieved parties (Bryant-Davis & Ocampo, 2005; Crenshaw, 1991; Daly, 2008; Díaz et al., 2001; Harper, 2012). Fourth, the compliance model fails to address the vast majority of behavior brought to equity and compliance offices for correction. Findings show that more than 90% of the cases to an equity office² do not meet the evidentiary standard for a policy violation (Viveiros, 2020). In other words, the majority of problematic behavior, while never being investigated or deemed a policy violation, remains unaddressed under compliance-only approaches.

Extant Informal Resolutions Models

A second way that some universities address misconduct and resulting cultural breaches and alleged policy violations is using informal resolutions and adaptable models. Existing adaptable models include mediation and restorative approaches aimed at dealing with the harm that is created between the parties. Such approaches are described as informal because they do not involve a process of investigation, witness and statement-taking, and policy violation adjudication. Instead, adaptable approaches aim to get the individual who caused the harm to understand the impact of their actions and to take responsibility for it (Orcutt et al., 2020).

Restorative and mediative approaches, although recently popularized in Western approaches have deep roots in Indigenous peacemaking. Native American (or American Indian) and First Nation justice philosophy and practice, healing, along with reintegrating individuals into their community, is seen as more important than punishment. Indigenous peacemaking, contrary to traditional Eurocentric justice process involves bringing together victims, offenders and their supporters to get to the bottom of a problem. The modern restorative justice movement draws from the philosophy and processes of its Indigenous origins (Mirsky, 2004).

Today, and specifically in the education context, restorative justice approaches have been used primarily in the K-12 space to resolve misconduct and conflict, successfully. Weaver and Swank (2020) explored the integration of restorative justice practices as a disciplinary approach within a middle school and found that stakeholders representing various groups—including administration, instructional staff, and students—reported success of the approach showing that restorative justice provides promise for schools seeking to implement an alternative disciplinary approach. Research regarding the use of restorative campus practices geared toward high school students have equally reported positive influences for classroom climate and retention (Knight & Wadhwa, 2014; Sandwick, Hahn & Ayoub, 2019).

The benefits of this ARM approach are now also found among college student conduct cases (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). Extant literature demonstrates how restorative approaches compliment these student conduct processes; help students develop empathy and have a positive impact on school and campus culture, and the advancement of cultural and diverse competencies, and incurs great satisfaction by the participant (Payne & Welch, 2013; Poulson, 2003; Sandwick et al., 2019).

A Promising Alternative—The Adaptable Resolution Model (ARM) in Higher Education

A promising alternative to extant models is the adaptable resolution model (ARM) which can be useful for institutions of higher education, and for addressing student, staff, and faculty misconduct and cultural breaches. Also called adaptable resolution processes (ARP) or Adaptable Conflict Resolution (ACR)³, our proposed ARM would be extended to faculty, staff, and students and be housed in a campus unit working alongside existing equity and compliance-only spaces. Restorative practices, coaching, training, and mediation principles are at the core of this proposed model for higher education. In addition, the ARM unit should offer dispute resolution (DR) practices. The elements for the proposed ARM are described in Table 1.

Table 1.

Adaptable Resolution Model (ARM) Elements.

Inclusive Culture Training and Education Options	•Sees coaching of faculty, staff, and students with training as an effective communication to create connection and collaboration. This should include in-depth equity and inclusion training and coaching •Having an ARM training area helps campuses meet compliance but also more extensive DEI training and education measures as training here may also be used to support other processes, such as outcomes to a title VII or IX investigation outcome process
Circling/Restorative dialogue	•The roots of restorative thinking can be found in various faith traditions and Indigenous cultures dating back centuries. More recently, circling principles have been used as an alternative to the criminal justice system (Mirsky, 2004). The goals of circling and dialoguing are to take those involved in conflict to a solution where everyone feels, heard, treated fairly, able to move on and has a clear idea of what is needed for future actions. In this type of restorative circling, participants come together in a face-to-face meeting to discuss the harm/crime/breach and its impact and support people for both the victim-survivor and offender included in the discussions as a form of healing (Klingel & Maffie, 2016; Morrison & Vandering, 2012) •This will usually involve pre-conferencing on: (1) the goals for the circle, (2) who is invited, (3) how the facilitator will open the circle, (4) if a talking piece or stick will be used (an object with Indigenous origins that is commonly used to allow one to speak in the circle without interruptions, (5) what questions will be asked to start building connection between circle participants (6) the values and other questions to establish a foundation for the circle and (7) other guidelines, as may be appropriate (Koss, 2010; Poulson, 2003)
Mediation	•Mediation is a structured, interactive process where a neutral (or multi-partial party recognizing the potentiality of harmful power dynamics in conflict) third party assists disputing parties in resolving conflict through the use of specialized communication and negotiation techniques. The process is focused primarily upon the needs, rights, and interests of the parties. The mediator uses a wide variety of techniques to guide the process in a constructive direction and to help the parties find their optimal solution (Jülich et al., 2010; Katz & Kovack, 2016)
Conflict coaching	•Coaching could take many forms and has many applications, including being used in conjunction with the other models presented here. At the heart of the process is to support individuals to engage effectively (supported by a trained coach) with a goal to help them gain increased competence and confidence to manage and engage in dispute resolution or work through a particularly difficult or complex conflict (Noble, 2012)

Considerations for the Adaptable Resolution Model

As promising as adaptable resolution models are, they require care in terms of appropriate implementation on campuses. First, implementation requires one to ask which types of identity-based discrimination is appropriate for an ARM because they may not be appropriate for all types of misconduct. Types of misconduct that are not appropriate for adaptable resolution models include sexual misconduct, intimate partner violence, and stalking. Universities must offer other ways to deal with this misconduct since available case law suggests that institutions that do not ensure that “informal” resolution is engaged in voluntarily may be subject to liability (or at the least, costly litigation and potentially for an Office of Civil Rights (OCR) investigation (Orcutt et al., 2020). Related to this is that voluntariness is key to ensure the success of ARM and campuses may need to tailor policies appropriately. As Orcutt and colleagues (2020) have pointed out, universities must ensure all parties engage voluntarily and this may not be possible with some gender-based misconduct.

Second, there is a dearth of literature exploring the benefits of implementing an adaptable resolution model in higher education, especially for staff and faculty. Some research has found that an ARM in higher education based on social justice principles can be successfully utilized for faculty, staff, and students (Watson et al., 2018), and that integrating conflict management behaviors is positively correlated to innovation and performance (Chen et al., 2012). Still, few higher education institutions that have or are considering adopting adaptable models are not creating these models based on blueprints from other organizations but rather taking multiple paths to system design (Klingel & Maffie, 2016); and that such adaptable resolution models are often ineffectively implemented (Anderson, 2020). This indicates the need for evaluation research to identify best practices in a college setting for students, staff, and faculty.

Third, a non-retributive (mediation and restorative) approach to discipline may be contradictory to how campus equity and compliance leaders are trained about discipline practices. Therefore, the integration of ARM requires a change in thinking about discipline and a concurrent openness to implementing an alternative and adaptable resolution approach (Orcutt et al., 2020).

Fourth, compliance obligations must continue to be met. This is possible as compliance and restorative models can exist hand-in-hand. Restorative justice models have emerged under the banner of Title IX through (1) informal resolution to resolve a formal complaint without an investigation and adjudication, or alternatively, a (2) a restorative justice model may be utilized after a respondent is found responsible, such as through a disciplinary sanction (Orcutt et al., 2020).

Fifth, as Orcutt et al. (2020) highlight, the fact that campus Title IX and VII proceedings are separate from criminal legal proceedings creates the possibility for concurrent or future civil or criminal legal proceedings. Without the promise of confidentiality in ARM, both the reporting and responding parties may not feel safe to divulge sensitive information either about themselves personally or the issues that occurred.

The Benefits of the Adaptable Resolution Model

An ARM approach offers many advantages over existing approaches. First, restorative models are known to offer a strong return on investment and promote prevention (Bell et al., 2020; Daly, 2008; Giacomini et al., 2020; Jülich et al., 2010). Mediation models offer the same benefits (Jülich et al., 2010).

Second, ARM uses practices which are better equipped to get an individual who caused harm to understand and acknowledge the impact and the harm that they caused. This could be especially potent for those individuals who have been traditionally marginalized, such, as Gómez (2019) points out, Black people in the U.S., who have experienced interpersonal trauma (e.g., physical, sexual, and psychological abuse), within a context that includes inequality at various levels. From this vantage point, an ARM supported by individuals who are grounded in concepts of power, privilege and anti-oppression work in equity, diversity, inclusion, and social justice is transformative, inclusive, and equitable to all. Such an approach would center and honor the Indigenous roots of such practices and build an ethos from which Western retributive models could learn. To be sure, Koss (2010) finds that restorative approaches increase the odds that those causing harm take responsibility for their actions.

Third, ARM is cost effective. The cost to address such cultural breaches is significantly less when using and ARM approach compared to the compliance-only approach. At a recent 2019 NAUA Conference, Draper presented research demonstrating that administrative hearings in Title IX cases took an average of 76.5 hours of staff time per case, compared to an average of 24.5 hours of staff time per case using an ARM approach (Orcutt et al., 2020).

Fourth, despite the fact that instituting adaptable or restorative practices are often a culture shift for all involved, the switch from punitive, zero-tolerance and retributive models of discipline regarding students in higher education has been largely positive (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). It stands to reason then that such models seem crucial both for overall campus success and a more inclusive, less stratified higher educational system.

Fifth and beyond the student arena, restorative models are needed in the realm of staff and faculty. For example, a recent pilot survey of 48 academic leaders conducted at the University of Colorado demonstrated the extent to which leaders experienced mental health, cognitive and somatic symptoms over the last month, and about whether their health symptoms were related to challenges leading people. The study found that leaders with higher symptoms were more likely than leaders with lower symptoms to attribute their symptoms to the challenges of leading people. Moreover, the pilot study also found that less than 20% of the issues reported with managing people led to a Title IX or Title VII investigation and instead was more likely to go to mediation (19.6%), formal grievance (26.1%), litigation (6.5%), disciplinary action (21.7%), or other (26.1%). These data also revealed that the problem faced by academic leaders were more likely to be culture-based in nature (54.2%) with time spent on these issues amounting to anywhere from about 10% to about 60% of clock hours per week (Bonomi et al., 2020).

Finally, ARM underscores the philosophy and practice of restorative approaches to help higher education campuses successfully navigate conflict that falls into the yellow-zone area. Instead of overly focusing on retributive models of conduct, and the limiting context of existing restorative approaches, ARM provides a model of adaptable resolution services that is value-based and needs-led. A detailed comparison of existing approaches is found in Table 2.

Table 2.

A Comparison of Approaches.

	Compliance-Only Model	Informal Resolution Models	Adaptive Resolution Model (ARM)
Focus	Crime or campus policy violation and breach of statute/protected category/law	Largely confined to the K-12 space, and on student conduct behavior only	A cultural breach occurs when one acts outside respected norms of behavior and flow from the yellow-zone behaviors described by Rennison (2018)
Overarching philosophy	Perpetrator centered What law/policy was violated? Who did what? What do they deserve?	Person harmed Who has been hurt and what do they need?	Focused on the student, staff or faculty harmed. Who has been hurt? What do they need? How can amends be made?
Goal	Punish perpetrator	Repair/restoration of parties	Repair/mediation/restoration of parties with community involvement
Parties involvement	Indirect representation	Direct involvement	Direct involvement
Approach	Adversarial	Collaborative	Collaborative and community focused
University role	Neutral	Neutrality	Multi-partiality is allowed to allow for recognition of harmful power dynamics
Perspective	Focused on past	Forward looking	Forward looking

Conclusion

The ARM is flexible in its design out of the belief that there is not a one-size-fits-all response that meets the needs of all reporting parties and helps all respondents acknowledge the harm that they potentially caused. An ARM model offers the promise to deal with the harm emanating from cultural breaches. An ARM practice co-located alongside a pre-existing compliance-only approach can prove more cost efficient and once implemented will become part of the fabric of the institution, especially with the promise ARM practices offer in repairing harms and breaches that do not rise to policy violation.

Fundamentally, an adaptable resolution model that aims to tackle the harm emanating from cultural breaches involves trust and the belief that the future holds promise for a better outcome. Coming together to find common ground is something a retributive model has never and will never offer. Nor has the retributive model easily loaned itself to provide space for multi-partiality, understanding, empathy, shared solution-building, and mutual goal fulfillment. Retribution models deliver only on their promise to prove (or not) a campus policy violation. Reframing how campuses approach yellow-zone behavior offers higher education institutions transferable content and creates intentional space for inclusive conflict excellence (through a DEI focus), integration, application, transformative, and procedural sound justice.⁴

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Nélia Viveiros

Notes

Author Biographies

Nelia Viveiros (she/her/ella) currently serves in an administrative capacity in higher education and also holds a faculty appointment in the School of Education and Human Development at the University of Colorado Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus. Dr. Viveiros’ focus in higher education is on managing large-scale change efforts and mitigating conflict and trauma in the workspace, especially within the context of academe. Viveiros earned her Ed.D. in 2018 from the University of Colorado Denver, a law degree with the University of London in 2013, the MSc from the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2001, and a baccalaureate degree from Temple University, in 2000. In 2020, Viveiros was awarded the University Thomas Jefferson Award for her achievement in advancing the cause of civic responsibility and for her profound commitment to the welfare and rights of the individual. Dr. Viveiros has served as a title IX coordinator, vice chancellor for diversity, equity and inclusion, and is a trained mediator and conflict coach. Dr. Viveiros’ particular research focus is on mitigating trauma in the workplace, especially for BIPOC folx, through restorative approaches. More recently, Dr. Viveiros was quoted in the National Academies of Science Engineering Medicine publication (Committee on Women in Science, Engineering and Medicine) Workshop on Developing Evaluation Metrics for Sexual Harassment Prevention Efforts .

Theodosia Cook (she/her/hers) joined the University of Colorado as chief diversity officer for the four-campus university system in May 2020. Cook helps develop and implement system-wide policies and initiatives that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. She coordinates and collaborates with chief diversity officers, faculty, and administrators on each of the campuses. She also leads efforts to ensure diversity is effectively represented in CU’s strategic and annual planning. Cook has led diversity and inclusion efforts for faculty, staff, students, and alumni at Dartmouth College. Before working in higher education, she resided in the K-12 space as a Professional Development Lead Teacher, Curriculum Writer for culturally relevant teaching, and a union representative. She has served as an advisory board member for the Posse Foundation and Friends and Returned Peace Corps Volunteers of Guyana. Theodosia holds a BA in Political Science from Sewanee: The University of the South and an MA in Education Leadership from Teachers College, Columbia University. Ms. Cook also holds certification as an Affirmative Action Professional (CAAP) and through the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM-CP).

Callie Marie Rennison (she/her/hers) is a professor, former associate dean of faculty affairs at University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs and current Regent for the University of Colorado. She has also served as the Director of the Office of Equity and Title IX Coordinator for the CU Denver and Anschutz Medical campuses. Rennison earned her Ph.D. in 1997 in Political Science from the University of Houston, University Park, where she also received a B.S. in Psychology, M.A. in Sociology and M.A. in Political science. In 2016, she was awarded the Bonnie S. Fisher Victimology Career Award from the Division of Victimology in the American Society of Criminology. She has also served on a National Academies Committee examining domestic sex trafficking of minors in the United States and was a senior researcher at the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics. Her research focuses on the nature, extent and consequences of violent victimization with an emphasis on research methodology, quantitative analysis, measurement, and crime data. Her research has appeared in many venues including the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Justice Quarterly, Violence and Victims, and Violence Against Women. She has authored several books including “Introduction to Criminal Justice: Systems, Diversity and Change” (with Dr. Mary Dodge; Sage Publications), the “Wiley Handbook on the Psychology of Violence” (edited with Dr. Carlos Cuevas), “Research Methods in Criminal Justice and Criminology” (with Dr. Timothy C. Hart; Sage Publications) and the “International Handbook of Violence Studies” (with Drs. Walter DeKeseredy and Amanda Sanchez). Most recently (2019), she published Women Leading Change in Academia: Breaking the Glass Cliff, Ceiling and Slipper with co-editor Dr. Amy Bonomi of Michigan State University. Dr. Rennison has taught a variety of undergraduate and graduate courses including Research Methods, Statistics, Murder in America, Crime and the Media, and Introduction to Criminal.

References

Anderson

(2020). Deadline time for new federal sexual assault policies inside higher. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/08/14/colleges-implement-changes-meet-title-ix-deadline.

Bell

Harris

L.A.

Karp

D.R

(2020). On navigating forgiveness, redemption, and rejection in Culture as Catalyst. Skidmore College.

Bonomi

AE.

Viveiros

Dickman-Burnett

(2020). Leadership in higher education. [Unpublished raw data]. https://ucdenver.co1.qualtrics.com/Q/EditSection/Blocks?ContextSurveyID=SV_9AYQiEzf4gRhOst.

Bryant-Davis

Ocampo

(2005). The trauma of racism. The Counseling Psychologist, 33(4), 574-578. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000005276581.

Chen

X. H.

Zhao

Liu

Dash Wu

(2012). Improving employees’ job satisfaction and innovation performance using conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management, 23(2), 151-172. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444061211218276.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 § 7, 42 U.SC. § 2000E et Seq (1964).

Cleveland Clinic, (2021). Heart failure zones. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/-/scassets/files/org/heart/heart-failure/heart-failure-zones-16.pdf?la=en.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, identity Politics, and violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039.

Daly

(2008). Seeking justice in the 21st century: Towards an intersectional politics of justice sociology of Crime11. Law and Deviance, 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1521-6136(08)00401-6.

10.

Díaz

Ayala

Bein

Henne

Marin

(2001). The impact of homophobia, poverty, and racism on the mental health of gay and bisexual latino men: findings from 3 US cities. American Journal of Public Health, 91(6), 927–932. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.91.6.927.

11.

Fiscal Year (2018). Enforcement and litigation data [press Release]. https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-releases-fiscal-year-2018-enforcement-and-litigation-data.

12.

Freyd

J.J

(2008). Betrayal Trauma. In Reyes

Elhai

J.D.

Ford

J.D.

(Eds), Encyclopedia ofPsychological Trauma (pp. 76). John Wiley & Sons.

13.

Giacomini

N.G.

Karp

D.R.

Dixon

D.D.

Glassman

(2020). Off script: incorporating principles of conflict management, restorative justice, and inclusive excellence intoinformal and formal adjudication pathways. In Schrage

J.M.

Giacomini

N.G.

(Eds.), Reframing Campus Conflict and Student Conduct Practice for Inclusive Excellence (2nd edition, pp. 181–197): Stylus PublishersStylus.

14.

Gómez

J. M.

(2019). Isn't it all about victimization? (Intra)cultural pressure and cutural betrayal trauma in ethnic minority college women. Violence Against Women, 25(10), 1211–1225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218811682.

15.

Gómez

J. M

(2016). Cultural betrayal trauma theory. [Dissertation].

16.

Harper

S. R

(2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racistinstitutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 9–29. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0047.

17.

Jülich

McGregor

Annan

Landon

McCarrison

McPhillips

(2010). Yes, there is another way! Canterbury Law Review, 17, 222-228. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?hl=en&volume=17&publication_year=2010&pages=222-228&author=S.+J%C3%BClich&author=K.+McGregor&author=J.+Annan&author=F.+Landon&author=D.+McCarrison&author=K.+McPhillips&title=Yes%2C+there+is+another+way%21.

18.

Katz

N.H.

Kovack

L.N

(2016). Higher education’s current state of alternative dispute resolution services for students. Journal of Conflict Management, 4(1), 5-37. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/shss_facarticles/368/.

19.

Kessler

R. C.

Mickelson

K. D.

Williams

D. R.

(1999). The prevalence, distribution, and mental health correlates of perceived discrimination in the United States. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40(3), 208–230. https://doi.org/10.2307/2676349.

20.

Klingel

Maffie

(2016). Conflict management systems in higher education: a look at mediation in public universities. Dispute Resolution Journal, 66(3), 12–17.

21.

Knight

Wadhwa

(2014). Expanding opportunity through critical restorative Justicen1. Schools, 11(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1086/675745.

22.

Koss

M. P

(2010). Restorative justice for acquaintance rape and misdemeanor sex crimes. In Ptacek

(Ed.), Feminism, Restorative Justice, and Violence Against Women (p. 218). New York: Oxford University Press.

23.

Kuypers

L.M.

Winner

M.G

(2011). The zones of regulation: A curriculum designed to foster self-regulation and emotional control. Think Social Publishing, Inc.

24.

Mirsky

(2004). Restorative practices of native American, first nation and other indigenous people of North America: Part One. Bethlehem, PA: International Institute for Restorative Practices. https://www.iirp.edu/news/restorative-justice-practices-of-native-american-first-nation-and-other-indigenous-people-of-north-america-part-one#subscribe-to-iirp-news.

25.

Morrison

B. E.

Vaandering

(2012). Restorative justice: pedagogy, praxis, and discipline. Journal of School Violence, 11(2), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2011.653322.

26.

Nagata

D. K.

Kim

J. H. J.

Nguyen

T. U.

(2015). Processing cultural trauma: Intergenerational effects of the Japanese American incarceration. Journal of Social Issues, 71(2), 356–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12115.

27.

Noble

(2012). Conflict management coaching. CINERGY Coaching.

28.

Orcutt

Petrowski

Karp

Draper

(2020). Restorative justice approaches to the informal resolution of student sexual misconduct. Journal of College and University Law, 45(2), 1-76. Hein Online.

29.

Payne

AP.

Welch

(2013). Restorative justice in schools: the influence of race on restorative discipline. Youth & Society, 47(4), 539–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X12473125.4

30.

Poulson

(2003). Third voice: A review of empirical research on the psychologicaloutcomes of restorative justice. Utah Law Review, 1, 167–203.

31.

Rennison

C.M

(2018). The view from a title ix office of the interpersonal violence and sexual misconduct continuum. [powerpoint slides]. Presented at the University of Kentucky.

32.

Sandwick

Hahn

J.W.

Ayoub

A.L

(2019). Fostering community, sharing power: lessons for building restorative justice school cultures. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(145), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4296.

33.

Smith

C. P.

Freyd

J. J.

(2013). Dangerous safe havens: institutional betrayal exacerbates sexual trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26(1), 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.21778.

34.

The average employee lawsuit . (2012). Cutting edge recruiting solutions. https://www.cersnow.com/blog/the-average-employee-lawsuit-costs-250000how-safe-is-your-company/.

35.

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2019). EEOC Releases. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

36.

Viveiros

(2020). Maxient export-2020-12-26_16-30-7. [Unpublished Raw Data]. https://cm.maxient.com/php.

37.

Wang

Jacobs

Pugh

(2021). Title IX and campus sexual assault. The regulatory review. Philadelphia, PA: Penn Program on Regulation. https://www.theregreview.org/2021/07/10/saturday-seminar-title-ix-campus-sexual-assault/.

38.

Watson

N. T.

Rogers

K. S.

Watson

K. L.

Liau-Hing Yep

(2018). Integrating social justice-based conflict resolution into higher education settings: Faculty, staff, and student professional development through mediation training. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 36(3), 251-262. https://doi.org/10.1002/CRQ.21233.

39.

Weaver

J. L.

Swank

J. M.

(2020). A case study of the implementation of restorative justice ina middle school. RMLE Online, 43(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2020.1733912.