We believe that building a community requires more than establishing expectations and responding when those expectations are not met. It also requires a willingness to recognize growth, encourage meaningful accountability, and create paths for people to learn from their experiences. 

We recognize that people are capable of making mistakes, causing harm, reflecting on their actions, and developing healthier ways of engaging with others. We also recognize that growth is not automatic, accountability takes work, and the passage of time alone does not demonstrate change.

A suspension or restriction from the studio is not necessarily a permanent exclusion. Depending on the circumstances, it may serve as an opportunity for reflection, education, and behavioral change, while also establishing boundaries intended to protect the community.  When an individual has been suspended or otherwise restricted from participating at BLRS, we may consider reinstatement after an appropriate period of time and the completion of any requirements established by the studio, which will vary depending on the incident. 

Our review process is intended to explore what an individual has learned, how they have reflected on the circumstances surrounding their restriction, and whether meaningful changes are evident in their understanding, behavior, and interactions with others. This process may include:

• Completion of a restorative reflection questionnaire addressing the circumstances surrounding the original decision, the impact of the behaviors involved, and steps taken toward growth

• Discussion of educational resources, personal reflection, mentorship, mediation, or other work undertaken during the period of restriction

• Identification of specific changes in communication, consent practices, or other relevant behaviors

• New references who can speak to the individual’s recent conduct, interactions, and demonstrated changes

• A new vetting conversation with studio leadership

• Completion of any additional requirements or conditions specific to circumstances of the original restriction.
  

Participation in this process does not guarantee reinstatement to the studio. Decisions will be made individually, considering the nature of the concerns, the information available, the individual’s response, and the studio’s responsibility to its community.

We know that timing and recency matter when evaluating concerns about someone’s conduct, as well as when considering their return. Recent behavior may provide a more accurate picture of someone’s current practices than behavior from several years ago. At the same time, the seriousness of past conduct is not diminished simply because time has passed.

We consider the nature, severity, frequency, and context of the original concerns, whether there is an ongoing pattern of similar behavior, and what has occurred since those concerns were raised. Time alone is neither evidence of accountability nor a reason to permanently define someone by their past behavior. We are interested in demonstrated growth over time, including how individuals navigate consent, boundaries, conflict, communication, and interpersonal responsibility in their more recent interactions.

On the note of accountability without requiring agreement, we recognize that individuals may have different recollections or interpretations of the events that led to a restriction. Our process does not necessarily require agreement with every reported detail or characterization.

However, we do expect a willingness to reflect on the concerns raised, consider the experiences and perspectives of others, recognize the potential impact of one’s behavior, and demonstrate an understanding of how similar situations might be approached differently. Accountability is not just a statement of good intentions. It is reflected in how an individual engages with others, responds to boundaries, navigates difficult interactions, and incorporates what they have learned into our actions.