Restorative justice practices are notoriously antithetical to the adversarial justice system we're used to dealing with. Assumptions we make in adversarial justice systems like open observation to ensure a public check on proceedings are not part of restorative practices. Even "there is one objective truth" are not implicitly part of restorative justice systems.
The existence and practice of alternative justice systems bring to light the mechanical sympathy between reality perception and justice systems. For those who subscribe to an ideology that contains a single objective reality, the idea that not everyone believes the same way can cause an intense counter reaction. I've seen this happen to people myself.
At the interaction between these two, there exists a sliver where we can say, if the book reader didn't want to be beholden to such systems, they could have voted with their feet and chose to educate themselves at a university which practiced a system of justice compatible with their beliefs. By choosing Stanford, they implicitly consented to the system Stanford uses, restorative justice ~et al~ etc.
This is a long way of saying, we may never know the nature of the harm.