10
Loading video...
By Reverend Robert Spicer
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
America is experiencing a level of division that reaches far beyond political disagreement.
Across our communities, disagreements about values, identity, and social issues are increasingly becoming personal conflicts. Conversations that once created opportunities for understanding now often become moments of accusation and separation.
Online spaces frequently reward outrage over reflection, making it easier to condemn people than to engage with them.
Read More on Leadership Insights
Throughout my work in education, restorative justice, and community transformation, I have witnessed a difficult truth: America does not simply have a disagreement problem. We have a reconciliation problem.
...
Conflict is inevitable in any society. A nation as diverse as the United States will always have competing ideas, different experiences, and difficult conversations.
The strength of a society is not measured by whether conflict exists. It is measured by whether people have the ability to repair relationships after conflict occurs.
Today, too many disagreements become battles where one side must defeat the other. Too often, the goal becomes proving who is right rather than understanding what happened, addressing harm, and finding a path forward.
When every conflict becomes a search for an enemy, communities lose the ability to heal.
Accountability Matters
I have spent much of my life examining how we respond when people cause harm. What I have learned is that our society has become highly skilled at punishment while remaining underdeveloped in the practice of repair.
When conflict emerges, our first instinct is often public condemnation, exclusion, or retaliation. These responses can create consequences, and consequences are sometimes necessary. Accountability matters.
However, punishment alone rarely answers the deeper questions that determine whether a community can move forward.
Who was harmed? What responsibility must be accepted? What needs to happen to restore trust? How do we ensure the same harm does not happen again?
Reconciliation
Those questions are at the center of reconciliation.
Punishment asks, “Who is wrong?”
Reconciliation asks, “How do we repair what happened?”
This distinction shaped my work in Chicago schools, where I saw firsthand how traditional approaches to discipline failed to address the deeper challenges facing students and communities.
Too often, a harmful action became the entire definition of a young person. The response focused on removing the individual rather than understanding the circumstances, addressing the harm, and creating accountability.
Research has raised concerns about relying primarily on exclusionary discipline. Zero-tolerance policies built around suspension and expulsion have limited evidence of effectiveness and may create unintended consequences for students.
Restorative Justice
Restorative approaches offer a different framework by focusing on accountability, dialogue, and repairing harm.
In the schools where I worked, restorative justice created opportunities for students to acknowledge harm, listen to those affected, and take meaningful steps toward repair. It did not eliminate accountability. It deepened it.
That lesson extends far beyond education.
Organizations often respond to internal conflicts by removing people rather than addressing the conditions that allowed conflict to develop.
Communities affected by violence often struggle to rebuild trust because systems focus heavily on punishment while investing less in restoration.
The Choice Before Us
Across society, we have built mechanisms for identifying failure, but we have not built enough pathways for repair.
Accountability without restoration creates distance. Accountability with restoration creates transformation.
This is where America faces a choice.
In the better future, disagreement remains part of democratic life, but disagreement no longer automatically produces permanent division.
Schools teach young people how to address harm. Communities create spaces for difficult conversations. Institutions hold people accountable while creating pathways toward restoration. Families and neighbors learn that listening does not require surrendering their convictions.
In that future, conflict becomes something communities can work through rather than something that permanently fractures them.
Deepening Distrust
The alternative is far more concerning. If every disagreement continues to become a battle for moral or political dominance, distrust will deepen.
People will increasingly retreat into ideological camps, relationships will become easier to abandon, and punishment will continue to replace dialogue.
We may become better at identifying who deserves blame while becoming less capable of rebuilding anything once trust has been broken.
That is not simply a political problem. It is a social one.
This is why I believe America must rethink how we approach justice, conflict, and community healing.
Reconciliation does not mean ignoring wrongdoing or avoiding difficult conversations. It requires confronting harm directly. It requires truth, responsibility, and a commitment to change.
Aspirational Justice
Through my work, I developed the concept of Aspirational Justice, a framework built around the idea that our systems should do more than respond to harm after it happens.
Aspirational Justice asks whether the conditions to which people are being restored are themselves just, combining truth-telling with symbolic acknowledgment, institutional change and tangible repair.
Its goal is not simply to return people to a previous condition, but to create the dignity, opportunity, belonging and agency needed for communities to flourish.
It should help communities repair relationships, rebuild trust, and create conditions that prevent future harm.
The principles behind this approach are not limited to schools or local communities. They can guide our national conversation.
Learning to Listen
But reconciliation cannot remain an abstract national ideal. It has to become a practice.
We must learn to listen before judging. We must understand the impact of harm while creating opportunities for people to accept responsibility. We must create communities where disagreement does not automatically lead to dehumanization.
In our schools, workplaces, families, civic institutions, and places of worship, we should create structured opportunities for people to speak honestly, listen to those affected, accept responsibility, and identify what meaningful repair requires.
America’s future depends on whether we choose revenge or repair.
Revenge or Repair
This does not mean abandoning consequences. A society without accountability cannot protect its people or uphold its values. It means recognizing that accountability reaches its highest purpose when it creates the possibility of transformation.
Strong societies are not those without conflict. They are societies with the wisdom and courage to resolve conflict without destroying the relationships that hold communities together.
The divisions we face today are real. They deserve honesty, courage, and action. But the answer cannot be a permanent cycle of accusation and retaliation. A nation cannot heal if every conflict ends with more people pushed away.
So the work begins with us. The next time a conflict emerges, we can ask a different set of questions: Who was harmed? What responsibility must be accepted? What does repair require? And what can we do to prevent the harm from happening again?
We can demand accountability while leaving room for restoration. We can disagree without dehumanizing one another. We can teach our children that conflict is something to navigate rather than something to fear. And we can ask our institutions to build systems that make repair possible.
America does not need fewer disagreements. Disagreement is part of democracy. What we need is a better way to move through those disagreements.
We need a culture and systems built around reconciliation.
Because the future of our nation will not be determined by whether we experience conflict. It will be determined by whether we have the courage, wisdom, and practical structures to repair what conflict breaks.
Reverend Robert Spicer is a minister at New Life Christian Ministries of Greater Chicago and the founder and CEO of Restorative Strategies, a consultancy that provides restorative-practices training to schools and other organizations. He developed the Aspirational Justice framework discussed in this article.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines