Truth and Reconciliation as a Model for Change in Response to #MeToo

• Published date: 01 November 2020
• Author: Roddrick A. Colvin,Kwan‐Lamar Blount‐Hill
• Date: 01 November 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13207

1138 Public Administration Review • No vember | D ecember 2 020

Roddrick A. Colvin

San Diego State University

Truth and Reconciliation as a Model for Change in Response

to #MeToo

Abstract: The U.S. criminal justice system is designed to handle extreme cases of sexual misconduct, but the system

has not adapted well to less extreme (but no less important) sexually inappropriate behaviors. As our understanding of

sexual misconduct and impropriety evolves, the need for a new system of accountability seems apparent. The authors

call for a new approach to providing justice for survivors/victims: the adoption of a truth and reconciliation model.

This model involves providing a public forum for survivors/victims to testify to the events of their victimization and

for offenders to admit previous wrongdoing, take responsibility, and ask forgiveness. While it is not appropriate for

handling illegal behaviors, a truth and reconciliation model would be ideal for incidents that are not illegal but

violate our evolving social norms.

In recent years, alongside the rise of the #MeToo

movement, there has been a popularization of the

term “sexual misconduct.” Sexual misconduct is not

a legal term but instead a social term meant to convey

a wide range of sexual improprieties. At one end of

the range are behaviors that are frequent but have little

social awareness, such as sex-based jokes. At the other

end of the range are behaviors that are less frequent

but have very high social awareness, such as forcible

rape. In most cases, the sexual improprieties that are

lower in frequency but high on social awareness are

considered illegal, criminal activities. In contrast, most

high-frequency, low-awareness improprieties—while

often inappropriate—are considered part of the social

norm. The emergence of the #MeToo movement can

be attributed, in part, to a shift in our understanding of

socially acceptable behaviors. This shift has meant that

the lines between what is and is not sanctioned have

become increasingly gray.

Notorious for its resistance to change, the American

criminal justice system has been largely inadequate

in coping with all but the clearest-cut and most

severe incidents of sexual impropriety—leaving

“lesser” offenses unaddressed—and its crude zero-

sum responses are often ineffective at serving the

needs of either individual survivors/victims or society.

Given evolving understandings of the extent of sexual

misconduct, how can we address misconduct that does not

fall into the realm of being “illegal” but does offend our

social norms and sense of decency?

What if there were an alternative specifically designed

to address sexual misconduct? Imagine: It is March

24, 2025. Professor Smith, a professor of public

administration at Big State University, receives a

notification as she hurries to her lecture course on

local policy making. Although she had expected

the notification to arrive on this day, it nonetheless

catches her off guard. It is not the first time she has

received a notification, nor her first involvement with

the Office of the State Attorney General’s Division

on Truth and Reconciliation (DTR). In the past, she

offered support and testimony to friends, family, and

coworkers through an encrypted online application.

She also participated in a number of online training

exercises, tutorials, and “open dialogues” that were

part of the division’s work to increase public education

and awareness about sexual misconduct in the state.

Still, this notification caught her off guard.

This time she was being asked to recount events from

nearly 20 years ago, when she was a graduate student.

Back then, she was forced to rebuff several advances

from Professor Xavier—a tenured professor—in her

department. While she had first thought the advances

mild, over time, Smith came to understand the

inappropriateness of Professor Xavier’s behavior and

the effects it had on her and other individuals in the

department. Yet she had never shared her personal

experiences with sexual harassment.

In fact, her testimony was being solicited by the

division at the request of Professor Xavier. He was

using the DTR’s proactive program to seek out and

redress misdeeds that he had committed during his

career as a professor, and he hoped Smith would

participate in the process. Smith, for her part, had

Kwan-Lamar Blount-Hill

City University of New York

Kwan-Lamar Blount-Hill is

completing a doctoral degree in criminal

justice at the City University of New York

Graduate Center, John Jay College of

Criminal Justice. He studies social identity,

the psychology of justice, and justice ethics.

He is a licensed attorney, and a former

police officer.

Email: kblount-Hill@jjay.cuny.edu

Roddrick A. Colvin is associate

professor of public administration in the

School of Public Affairs at San Diego State

University. He teaches courses in public

administration and criminal justice. His

current research interests include public

employment equity, police officers’ shared

perceptions and decision-making, and

LGBTQ civil rights.

Email: rcolvin@sdsu.edu

Viewpoint

Symposium:

Implications

of the #MeToo

Movement for

Academia

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 80, Iss. 6, pp. 1138–1141. © 2020 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13207.