(Revised 9/6/26)

Step up, step back.

The primary goal of a political organization is the opportunity to share our knowledge and contribute our efforts toward a common goal. This requires that we make a genuine effort to understand one another, which will serve to build a bigger community that is capable of seeing the changes we organize for. This cannot happen if we pollute our spaces with our own ideas, rather than giving space for others to share perspectives that are distinct from our own. Those who find it easy to engage must also hold space for others. Those for whom participation is difficult must be willing to participate and lead with us. Tension and harm must be addressed as it occurs, not delayed. We are strongest when we are all able to participate.

Take responsibility for your own feelings and actions.

We must take responsibility for the results of our actions. We recognize that impact is fundamentally different from intent, and that inadvertent harm is just as important to address through accountability as intentional harm. We also recognize that we have a responsibility to understand when accountability is warranted; if we do not name our needs or assert our boundaries, it follows that we might not expect those around us to understand them. Restorative and transformative justice cannot merely be reduced to accountability alone; it is a community-level process. Recognizing our own obligations to be self-regulating in our interactions is paramount to understanding the potential, and limitations, of accountability’s role in our community.

Ask for clarity instead of asserting it. Bad faith must be proven, not assumed.

Intent doesn’t always translate well to the spoken word. Our perception of the words of others may often fail to match their original intent. Though it may be difficult at times, we commit to upholding the presumption of good faith in our disagreements with one another. We cannot assume by default that others will always understand the intent of our own words, nor that our understanding of the words of others matches their intent. When we disagree with others, we commit to habitually asking for clarification to understand their intent, rather than asserting that intent on the speaker’s behalf. Bad faith emerges only through a sustained effort to deceive, misdirect, or misrepresent one’s beliefs. Respecting each other’s disagreements as genuine is harder, but is far healthier for preserving community.

We will not engage in nor tolerate any harassment or discrimination.

We will not engage in nor tolerate any harassment or discrimination relating, but not limited to, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, physical appearance, age, disability, race, color, national origin, religion, class, or any profession that does not uphold the carceral state. Any of the following actions constitute discrimination or harassment when such conduct creates a hostile environment, interferes with a comrade’s well-being or capacity to organize within LSC, or is recurrent and/or on-going. We will not tolerate nor make unwelcome, offensive, or derogatory remarks, jokes or slurs.

We will prioritize marginalized people’s safety over privileged people’s comfort. 

We understand that the feelings of non-marginalized groups are often prioritized over the real concerns of the marginalized. We will not punish members nor act on complaints involving “reverse racism,” “reverse sexism,” “cisphobia,” or any other “reverse -isms”, criticism for racist, sexist, cissexist, or otherwise oppressive behavior or assumptions, or reasonable communication of boundaries.

Tone policing is fundamentally detrimental to any shared community.

Criticism for the manner in which our ideas are expressed turns the focus away from our ideas and instead towards the individuals expressing them. This approach has consistently been used by our political enemies to isolate those of marginalized identities and discourage them from participating. We recognize the inherent threat that tone policing presents to our organizing when it surfaces in our spaces, especially when levied against comrades of marginalized identities. We commit to engage each other on the merits of our ideas, to resist the urge to make ad hominem accusations, and to name tone policing whenever it is encountered in our spaces.

Agree on basic narrative and shared boundaries around the story of a mediation before sharing it with others. 

The ultimate purpose of a restorative justice process is to heal a community that has been wounded. Outside of that process, participants to a conflict don’t owe anyone their story, and have the right to assert boundaries around the process. Sharing relevant information must begin with a plan that assures the dignity of those impacted. Social media posts about the process are not allowed while in the process; we challenge ourselves to not organize against each other unless it is absolutely necessary for community safety. Bringing in people outside a conversation prematurely will negatively impact the opportunity for healing.

Offering solutions is more productive than merely expressing opposition.

It is good and often necessary to disagree, to challenge each other, and to actively engage discomfort in our spaces. Simply being critical is easy; being constructive in our criticism is harder. We challenge ourselves to reframe opposition in the form of constructive feedback. “Yes and” is often far more generative than “no”. We commit to pursuing productive measures of addressing tension and disagreement, rather than stoking organizational drama, or stating opposition for its own sake.

Restorative justice is nonviolent.

When we confront our comrades with the impacts of their actions, our aim is not to make our community hostile or inhospitable to them, but to present them with the opportunity to address the harm they have caused and to make commitments toward improvement. Our efforts in providing accountability to those who have inflicted harm, unintentionally or otherwise, should not be made with an intent to punish or isolate, but to reconcile. We challenge ourselves to continue to view those who face accountability as our comrades, as we hope they may continue to view us in the same manner when the process concludes.