Content uploaded by Elizabeth Kandel Englander
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Elizabeth Kandel Englander on Oct 22, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://abs.sagepub.com/
American Behavioral Scientist
http://abs.sagepub.com/content/51/2/205
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0002764207306052
2007 51: 205American Behavioral Scientist
Elizabeth Englander
Is Bullying a Junior Hate Crime? Implications for Interventions
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:American Behavioral ScientistAdditional services and information for
http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://abs.sagepub.com/content/51/2/205.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Oct 9, 2007Version of Record >>
by guest on October 11, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from
205
American Behavioral Scientist
Volume 51 Number 2
October 2007 205-212
©2007 Sage Publications
10.1177/0002764207306052
http://abs.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Is Bullying a Junior Hate Crime?
Implications for Interventions
Elizabeth Englander
Bridgewater State College, Bridgewater, Massachusetts
Hate crimes and bullying behaviors among children have similarities. Both often focus
on “different” individuals as preferred targets, such as those from controversial groups
(e.g., homosexuals). Thus, unequal power exists between a bully and his or her victim,
and this dynamic precludes the use of equal-power interventions such as mediation. A
second similarity is a lack of basic respect for all persons and the subsequent justifica-
tion of violence against a particular person or group. A third similarity is the predomi-
nance of these behaviors among young (juvenile) offenders. These similarities between
hate crimes and bullying in children may inform bullying-prevention efforts. Programs
need to reduce bullying behaviors by focusing on tolerance of differences, the promo-
tion of positive attitudes toward diversity, and negative attitudes toward hate-based vic-
timization of people who may be different from the mainstream. The Massachusetts
Aggression Reduction Center’s Anti-Bullying Program provides a model for this
approach.
Keywords: bullying; hate; prejudice; bias; violence; aggression; abuse
Under Massachusetts law, hate crimes are those crimes motivated by hatred against a
person or group on the basis of race, religion, disability, color, ethnic/national origin or
sexual orientation. Hate crimes can occur by a physical attack, intimidating or threat-
ening behavior that puts a person in fear of immediate physical harm or damage to
property, such as vandalism.
—Office of Norfolk County District Attorney William Keating (n.d.)
Is Bullying a Hate Crime?
Targets of hate crimes are chosen specifically for harassment and violence
because of their membership in a given group (such as an ethnicity or religion). The
prejudice that characterizes hate crime offenders appears to focus on those who are
“different” (American Psychological Association, 1998). In contrast, there are times
when bullying is leveled against children without regard to their group status—a
bully may choose a victim simply because he or she is available or momentarily vul-
nerable (Naumann, 2001). In those cases, bullying does not appear to fit under the
rubric of “hate crimes.”
206 American Behavioral Scientist
But it is noteworthy that the majority of the time, bullying appears to be a “junior”
or “apprentice” version of adult hate crimes. Both bullying behaviors and hate
crimes are predominantly committed by young individuals (Strom, 2001). A broad
research literature confirms that most bullying behaviors by children focus primar-
ily, if not exclusively, on children who have perceived differences (Naumann, 2001).
One area of confusion may be the definition of the word differences, which is, after
all, a relative term. What makes a particular child different, and from whom are they
different? Do children target those who are different only from themselves? Is the
“norm” against which children are compared schoolwide or society-wide? Do bul-
lies target those who are different from a mainstream, media-fed conception of what
and how people “ought” to be? Are all differences targeted equally, or do some place
children at particularly high risk of being targeted by a bully?
The strongest differences perceived by children may be differences from their
immediate mainstream—that is, bullies may choose as preferred targets those
children who are clearly different from the mainstream group of children in their
school and who are identified with a socially controversial group (such as students
who are self-identified as gay or lesbian). This characteristic clearly parallels juve-
nile hate crimes, which also focus on those who are “different” and “unwelcome”
(McDevitt, 1998, as cited in Mjoseth, 1998). Other targets for bullying may be
children who are vulnerable or less able to defend themselves; certainly many
researchers and authors have noted that children with special needs can be a strong
focus group (Connors & Stalker, 2002). Generally speaking, any obvious differences
seem to make children preferred targets, such as children of color in predominately
White schools or children who wear very different clothing (such as religious garb)
or who are from cultures other than mainstream middle-class America (Buchanan &
Winzer, 2001).
The selection of “obvious” targets mirrors hate crimes in that schoolyard bullies
often victimize children with differences that society has already identified as contro-
versial or even pejorative (e.g., Muslims or Jews, homosexuals, ethnic minority
groups). Jack McDevitt has characterized hate crimes as “message crimes” (McDevitt,
1998), and like bullying, they are the polar opposite of welcoming messages. But
although the majority of hate crimes focus on individuals from particular racial groups
(American Psychological Association, 1998), bullying may paint with a broader brush.
When it comes to bullying, less obviously different children may be targeted as well.
For example, children who excel academically are targeted but at apparently lower
rates, perhaps because their academic or ability differences are not always immediately
apparent or salient (Schuler, 2002). Similarly, I would place children in different social
circumstances in this latter group, such as children of divorced parents, children of
socially deviant parents, and so on.
Miami University’s (2001) policy states that “many individuals become targets of
hateful acts because others are unable to accept differences based on race, gender,
sexual orientation, religion, age, ethnicity or disability.” The bully, like the perpetrator
of a hate crime, is focusing on this “different” victim for a variety of reasons. First,
bullies are less likely to encounter social disapproval or stigma if they focus their
activities on a socially nonconforming individual. Second, their aim is to remind that
individual of his or her differences and thus to reinforce their own, conforming their
sense of belonging to the mainstream group. By reinforcing their own conformity
and thus their own superiority by conforming, they reinforce a superior status to all
conforming bystanders and help secure their noninterference, if not their active sup-
port, of the bullying activities. That they terrorize or humiliate or degrade the victim
may be secondary to their own desires to secure and upgrade their own social posi-
tions. Or they may be psychologically troubled enough to enjoy the social humilia-
tion of others (Englander, 2005a).
A second characteristic that is consistent between bullying and hate crimes is the
casual acceptance of language that would be offensive, and possibly prohibited, in
most workplaces today. Among American middle-class adults in the 21st century,
social mores have evolved sufficiently to make many uncomfortable with the verbal
abuse of those who do not conform, provided that nonconformity takes certain
acceptable forms (such as ethnicity, religion, and some social groups). Other types
of nonconformity among Americans are still not tolerated because, for example, they
may represent illegal or morally noxious behaviors (such as groups who support sex-
ual activity between adults and children). Still, the correct response even to
extremely deviant groups is generally perceived to be public debate or, in the case of
illegal behaviors, judicial prosecution. Simply berating, humiliating, harassing, or
abusing individuals is frowned on. These evolving social mores have resulted in
socially unprecedented legislation in the United States; these new laws criminalize
hate crimes, including some types of offensive speech (e.g., see the Massachusetts
Civil Rights Act).
Among children in the United States, however (and in western Europe, for that
matter), these social mores have either changed, have never developed, or are not
routinely applied to social behavior. Children growing up in 2005, half a century
after the birth of the civil rights movement in the United States, typically view ver-
bally berating or humiliating nonconforming peers as a “fact of life,” and parents
likewise see their children’s use of offensive slurs as normative (National Education
Association, 2003). A survey of teachers in 2004 found that offensive and insulting
language is a daily, if not hourly, occurrence at many middle and high schools
(Englander, 2005a). Many educators working in schools today who were reared on
the appropriateness of social tolerance and diversity are appalled by their perception of
rampant use of slurs and offensive language in teenage children (Englander, 2005a).
A third critical characteristic of both bullying and hate crimes is a complete rejec-
tion of the concept that broad civility and tolerance have positive social value. Far
from modeling respectful and civil behaviors to all, children who bully seem to
regard some children as legitimate targets. An interesting line of research suggests
that chronically aggressive children may in fact be misinterpreting ambiguous social
Englander / Is Bullying a Junior Hate Crime? 207
cues as hostile attacks and thus may see their own bullying behaviors toward certain
children as justifiable responses (and thus not as offensive; Dodge et al., 2003). Seen
in this context, bullies might regard their bullying behaviors as self-defense rather
than as uncivil or unjustified abuse of others (Englander, 2003).
It may also be the case that the nationwide emphases on other issues have diluted
public attention to this one, and we are seeing the results of such socialization
neglect. In schools, certainly, recent years have seen a dramatically increased focus
on academics and standardized testing—and with a limited number of hours and lim-
ited resources, it is only natural that some other lessons have had to go unlearned.
Parents, too, who have grown up assuming that all individuals are more tolerant than
in past generations, may have found tolerance to be so obvious as to not necessitate
deliberate teaching on this issue. The question is whether human beings have a
marked tendency toward intolerance in the absence of deliberate teaching to the con-
trary. Perhaps children are more inclined to develop such intolerance unless parents
and schools make a concerted effort to ensure that they are taught otherwise.
Clearly there are parallels between hate crimes and childhood bullying. What can
these similarities tell us about effective approaches to reducing bullying behaviors
between children?
First, the issue of tolerance and respect needs to be an important part of any
antibullying effort. Young children represent an opportunity. Education and aware-
ness efforts can readily work positive effects on their behavior (as has happened
with previous social campaigns, such as antismoking efforts). Along this vein, many
bullying-prevention programs do include tolerance and respect among the curricu-
lum goals covered. As an example, the No Bullying Program (Title & Leonard, n.d.)
has as one of its major goals “Civility Rules.” Many other antibullying programs
similarly include respect and tolerance as central themes (Naumann, 2001).
A second lesson in bullying prevention that can be gleaned from society’s
approach to hate crimes is the potential use of mediation, even peer mediation (in
which mediators are other children), in attempting to resolve bullying episodes.
Although the use of mediation within the criminal justice system has steadily gained
in popularity, hate crimes have typically not been perceived as crimes well suited to
mediation. Although bullying between children is rarely as violent as, say, the 1995
bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (an action that resulted
in no fewer than 168 innocent dead), bullying between children bears enough of the
hallmarks of hate crimes to render mediation a controversial technique (at best).
One reason that bullying is often regarded (like hate crimes) as unsuitable for
mediation is the power differential that exists between bully and victim. This power
differential is not always obvious or appreciated by adults, who may confuse bullying
with conflict. Most bullying prevention programs in use today in schools in the United
States are based on the principals originally authored by Daniel Olweus (1991, 1993).
Out of Olweus’s basic research in Norway and the United States has emerged a
plethora of programs, focusing on conflict resolution, bullying prevention, or both.
208 American Behavioral Scientist
One unfortunate side effect of this large and relatively new applied literature is a
tendency to assume that bullying prevention and conflict resolution are in fact iden-
tical goals. Research suggests otherwise (Tutty et al., 2002). Although one might
include bullying incidents under the rubric “conflict,” it remains very important to
appreciate the distinction and psychological differences between relatively equal-
power conflicts between children and bullying behaviors, which are categorized by an
unequal power structure and are therefore more abusive and victimizing in their nature.
Educators in the United States today are encouraged to use mediation techniques
in addressing student conflicts, particularly at the high school and middle school
levels. Some teachers are incorporating conflict resolution and mediation and nego-
tiation techniques into standard curriculum (Stevahn, 2004). Research has generally
found a high level of satisfaction with peer mediation programs in school-based set-
tings (Burrell, Zirbel, & Allen, 2003). Programs that include teacher training have
often emphasized the role that teachers can take in using mediation and negotiation
between children who are in conflict (Rubin, 2004). There has been a definitive trend
toward training students and teachers to use mediation as the best method to resolve
conflict in schools (Casella, 2000).
The very real success of this trend, in general, discourages critical evaluation of the
effectiveness of mediation and negotiation in different types of conflicts between
students. However, researchers have discovered that several factors significantly
inhibit the use of mediation in schools (Theberge & Karan, 2004). One such factor
appears to be conflicts that involve bullying (Englander, 2005b; Theberge & Karan,
2004).
Mediation and negotiation generally assume that two children in conflict possess
relatively equal power, but bullying episodes are defined by their imbalance of
power (Olweus, 1991). Theberge and Karan (2004) note that “power imbalances
inhibit the use of mediation” (p. 287). This power imbalance renders mediation and
negotiation often inappropriate for both the bully and the target. Although many
educators have long approached conflict in children through the use of mediation
and negotiation, discipline through limit setting may be the only effective means of
encouraging children to cease bullying others. Although aggressive children may
(in part) behave that way because of past exposure to inconsistent discipline,
research suggests that firm limit setting is the primary means of changing aggres-
sive behavior toward peers. Because of this, it is critical for educators to appreciate
the distinctions between bullying and conflict and the appropriate programs to
address each type of aggressive behavior.
Summary and Conclusion
Bullying prevention can learn from its association with hate crimes. In addition
to antibullying education and techniques, preventative programs both need to teach
Englander / Is Bullying a Junior Hate Crime? 209
an appreciation and understanding of the unsuitability of unequal-power conflicts for
mediation and should include a focus on tolerance and diversity. Such factors may
be more important than equal-power conflict resolution skills, if the aim is to reduce
bullying and abusive behaviors. Conflict resolution skills remain critical for coping
with equal-power conflicts.
At the Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center (MARC) at Bridgewater State
College, we have found that faculty, staff, administration, and parents are highly recep-
tive to understanding the power inequalities inherent in bullying and how these
inequalities must guide adult responses to bullying (http://www.bridgew.edu/marc).
For example, in training teachers and administrators, we emphasize that adults
should not expect victims to readily report on bullying, especially in the presence of
a bully, because of their fear of retribution. We also teach adults to involve victims
in discipline as little as possible, because such involvement is often highly intimi-
dating for children and can be an actual deterrent to further reporting. As an
example, bullies should not be asked to apologize to their victims; although such
apologies may appear appropriate, they can serve as actual or perceived threats and
may reinforce, for victims, the idea that telling adults “only makes it worse.”
Young children are also highly receptive to messages about tolerance and respect,
and our most interesting observation during the 1st year of the MARC program was
the intense interest adolescents displayed regarding issues of respect and diversity.
As part of our program in middle and high schools, we send trained college students
to facilitate conversations about bullying behaviors teens are seeing in their own
social groups. The college student–facilitators are a critical factor in this program,
because teens typically have great respect and admiration for them, see them as high-
status peers, and thus readily discuss with them the bullying they see in their own
schools and among their own friends. We usually begin the conversation by asking
students to describe the problems they are seeing in their own schools. Although we
ask the students for their perceptions, in fact, our experiences have made us very
aware of what the students are likely to report. Notably, in almost every school,
teenagers begin by describing failures to tolerate and respect differences. They usu-
ally do not use the terms hate crime or diversity, but this is in fact what they describe.
The groups who are not tolerated vary somewhat from community to community,
but they frequently involve students of other races, students who self-identify as gay
or lesbian, students who are from lower social classes, and students who excel aca-
demically or belong to “unpopular” groups or clubs at school.
Perhaps bullying has flourished among children because of a lack of emphasis
about the importance of tolerance and respect for diversity among adults, the inappro-
priate use of mediation in bullying episodes, and/or a lack of understanding regarding
the distinction between equal-power and unequal-power conflicts. If so, addressing
such issues with adults and children can begin to dismantle the “apprenticeship” of
hate crimes.
210 American Behavioral Scientist
References
American Psychological Association. (1998). Hate crimes today: An age-old foe in modern dress.
Washington, DC: Author.
Buchanan, P., & Winzer, M. (2001). Bullying in schools: Children’s voices. International Journal of
Special Education,16(1), 67-69.
Burrell, N., Zirbel, C., & Allen, M. (2003). Evaluating peer mediation outcomes in educational settings:
A meta-analytic review. Conflict Resolution Quarterly,21(1), 7-26.
Casella, R. (2000). The benefits of peer mediation in the context of urban conflict and program status.
Urban Education,35(3), 324-355.
Connors, C., & Stalker, K. (2002). Children’s experiences of disability: A positive outlook. Edinburgh:
Scottish Executive Education Department. Retrieved November 16, 2005, from http://www.
scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/46951/0013975.pdf
Dodge, K. A., Lansford, J. E., Salzer Burks, V., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Fontaine, R., et al. (2003). Peer
rejection and social information-processing factors in the development of aggressive behavior prob-
lems in children. Child Development,74(2), 374-393.
Englander, E. (2003). Understanding violence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Englander, E. (2005a, October). Spare the bully and spoil the school. Keynote presentation at the conference
of the National Association of Social Workers, Worcester, MA.
Englander, E. (2005b). When should you hesitate to mediate? Models of Respecting Everyone,1(1), 2-4.
Keating, W. (n.d.). Bullying, harassment, and violence. Retrieved November 20, 2005, from http://www
.mass.gov/da/norfolk/bullying.html
McDevitt, J. (1998). The Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.
Washington, DC.
Miami University. (2001). No Hate Initiative. Retrieved July 21, 2005, from http://www.miami.muohio.edu/
documents_and_policies/nohate/
Mjoseth, J. (1998, January). Psychologists call for assault on hate crimes. American Psychological Association
Monitor, p. 25.
National Education Association. (2003). Parents’role in bullying prevention and intervention. Retrieved
November 10, 2005, from http://www.nea.org/schoolsafety/bullyingparentsrole.html
Naumann, K. (2001). Briefing paper: Bullying. Little Rock, AR: School Violence Resource Center.
Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a school-
based intervention program. In D. Pepler & K. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of child-
hood aggression (pp. 411-448). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Rubin, R. (2004). Building a comprehensive discipline system and strengthening school climate. Reclaiming
Children and Youth,13(3), 162-169.
Schuler, P. (2002). Teasing and gifted children. SENG Newsletter,2(1), 3-4.
Stevahn, L. (2004). Integrating conflict resolution training into the curriculum. Theory Into Practice,
43(1), 50-58.
Strom, K. J. (2001). Hate crimes reported in CIBRS, 1997-99. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Theberge, S., & Karan, O. (2004). Six factors inhibiting the use of peer mediation in a junior high school.
Professional School Counseling,7(4), 283-291.
Title, B., & Leonard, L. S. (n.d.). Teaching peace. Retrieved November 16, 2005, from http://www
.teachingpeace.org
Tutty, L. M., Bradshaw, C., Thurston, W. E., Toy-Pries, D., Dewar, M. E., Tunstall, L., et al. (2002).
School-based violence prevention programs: A resource manual. Retrieved September 25, 2005, from
http://www.ucalgary.ca/resolve/violenceprevention/English/reviewprog/bullyintro.htm
Englander / Is Bullying a Junior Hate Crime? 211
Elizabeth Englander is a professor of psychology and the founder and director of the Massachusetts
Aggression Reduction Center at Bridgewater State College, a center that delivers antiviolence and antibul-
lying programs for the state of Massachusetts. She is a nationally recognized expert in the area of bully-
ing, childhood causes of violence and aggression, child development, and characteristics of juvenile and
adult violent offenders. She is the author of more than two dozen articles in journals and books and the
author of Understanding Violence, a text in the field of child development, biological psychology, and
violent criminal behavior, which was recently released in its third edition.
212 American Behavioral Scientist
