Encyclopedia of School Crime and Violence

Encyclopedia of School Crime and Violence This page intentionally left blank Encyclopedia of School Crime and Viole...

150 downloads 9755 Views 5MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Encyclopedia of School Crime and Violence

This page intentionally left blank

Encyclopedia of School Crime and Violence A–N VOLUME 1

Laura L. Finley, Editor Foreword by Evelyn Ang

Copyright 2011 by Laura L. Finley All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Encyclopedia of school crime and violence / Laura L. Finley, editor ; foreword by Evelyn Ang. v. ; cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978–0–313–36238–5 (hard copy : alk. paper) — ISBN 978–0–313–36239–2 (ebook) 1. Students–Crimes against–United States–Encyclopedias. 2. School violence–United States– Encyclopedias. I. Finley, Laura L. HV6250.4.S78E53 2011 371.70 8097303—dc22 2011009812 ISBN: 978–0–313–36238–5 EISBN: 978–0–313–36239–2 15 14 13 12 11

1 2 3 4 5

This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an eBook. Visit www.abc-clio.com for details. ABC-CLIO, LLC 130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911 Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911 This book is printed on acid-free paper Manufactured in the United States of America

Contents

Alphabetical List of Entries, vii Topical List of Entries, xiii Foreword by Evelyn Ang, xvii Preface, xxiii Acknowledgments, xxv Timeline of Significant Events Related to School Crime and Violence, xxvii The Encyclopedia, 1 Discussion Questions, 547 Extension Activities Related to School and Campus Crime and Violence, 549 Appendix 1: Important Federal Legislation Related to School and Campus Crime and Violence, 551 Appendix 2: Primary Source Documents: Sample Legislation: K–12 Public Schools, 553 Appendix 3: Primary Source Documents: Sample Legislation: Colleges and Universities, 633 Appendix 4: U.S. Supreme Court Cases Related to School and Campus Crime and Violence, 643 Appendix 5: U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Relevant to School Crime and Violence, 647 Recommended Films About School and Campus Crime and Violence, 659

v

vi

Contents

Recommended Resources, 665 Index, 677 About the Editor and Contributors, 687

Alphabetical List of Entries

Biological Theories Bishop, Amy Board of Ed. of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls Bosse, Sebastian Bowling for Columbine Brazill, Nathaniel Brewer, Michael Bullycide Bullying, College Bullying, High School Bullying Laws

A Abuse and Crime and Violence ADD/ADHD Adult Trials for Juveniles Africa and School Crime and Violence Alcohol and School Crime and Violence American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Amnesty International Anger Management Anonymous Tip Lines Arts-Based Programs Asia and School Crime and Violence Athletes and Crime and Violence, College Athletes and Crime and Violence, High School Athletes and Violence Prevention Auvinen, Pekka-Eric

C Canada and School Crime and Violence Carneal, Michael Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Central Asia Institute (CAI) Choice Theories Clery Act Columbine High School Massacre Comprehensive Crime Control Act Conflict Resolution/Peer Mediation Conflict Theories Control Theories

B Bath, Michigan, School Bombing Baylor College Basketball Murder Case Beslan School Hostage Crisis Bias, Len Big Brothers Big Sisters

vii

viii

Alphabetical List of Entries

Coon, Asa Corporal Punishment Crime and Violence in Private Secondary Schools Crime Stoppers Cyber-offenses, College Cyber-offenses, High School D Dann, Laurie Dating Violence, College Dating Violence, High School Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine Attack on Ma’alot School Dhein, Alaa Abu Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancements and Leadership Through Alliances (DELTA) Program Do Something Dress Codes Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) Drug Offenses, College Drug Offenses, High School Drug Testing Duke University Lacrosse Team Sexual Assault Case E Educational Programs and Training, College Educational Programs and Training, High School Elementary Schools and Crime and Violence Elephant Emergency Response Plans

European Union and School Crime and Violence Expect Respect F Fear of School Crime and Violence Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Fiction and School Crime and Violence Flores, Robert Free Speech G Gambling Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) Gangs and School Crime and Violence Gender and School Crime and Violence, College Gender and School Crime and Violence, High School Gender-Related Theories Gill, Kimveer Glen Ridge, New Jersey, Rape Incident Goss v. Lopez Gun Control Legislation H Hamilton, Thomas Hamilton Fish Institute Hate Crimes, College Hazing, College Hazing, High School Hazing Laws Honor Codes Houston, Eric Human Rights Education Human Rights Watch

Alphabetical List of Entries

I In loco parentis Integrated Theories J Jeremy Journals Devoted to School Crime and Violence K Kent State National Guard Shootings King, Lawrence Kinkel, Kip Krestchmer, Tim L Labeling Theories La Salle University Sex Scandal and Cover-up Latin America and School Crime and Violence Le´pine, Marc Lo, Wayne Loukaitis, Barry Lu, Gang

Moral Panics and High School Crime and Violence Movies and School Crime and Violence Music and School Crime and Violence Muslims and School Crime and Violence N National School Safety Center National Threat Assessment Center National Youth Survey National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center Natural Born Killers New Jersey v. T.L.O. No Child Left Behind Act Northern Illinois University Shooting Northwestern High School Sex Scandal O Odighizuwa, Peter Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Ophelia Project Owens, Dedrick

M Manson, Marilyn Mental Illness and School Crime and Violence Mentoring Metal Detectors Middle East and School Crime and Violence Middle Schools and Crime and Violence Monitoring the Future Survey Moral Panics and Campus Crime and Violence

P Parens patriae Parents and School Crime and Violence Peace and Justice Studies Association Peace Education, College Peace Education, High School Pennington, Douglas Police and Surveillance, College Police and Surveillance, High School Policies and Campus Violence Laws

ix

x

Alphabetical List of Entries

Poulin, Robert Prescription Drugs and School Crime and Violence Prince, Phoebe Professor-Perpetrated Crime and Violence Property Crimes, College Property Crimes, High School Public Health Approach Punitive Responses, College Purdy, Patrick R Race and School Crime and Violence Ramsey, Evan Religion and High School Crime and Violence Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP) Restorative Justice Roberts, Charles Rural School Violence

Sexual Assault Crimes, High School Sexual Harassment Sexual Orientation and School Crime and Violence, College Sexual Orientation and School Crime and Violence, High School Social Learning Theories Social Networking Social Structure Theories Solomon, T. J. South America and School Crime and Violence Southern Poverty Law Center Spencer, Brenda Spur Posse Steinha¨user, Robert Stop Bullying Now Suburban School Violence Suicide, College Suicide, High School Systemic/Structural Violence, College Systemic/Structural Violence, High School

S

T

Saari, Matti Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act Safe Schools/GLSEN Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding Save the Children School Crime and School Climate, College School Crime and School Climate, High School School Crime Victimization Survey School-to-Prison Pipeline Search and Seizure, High School Security on Campus, Inc. Sexual Assault Crimes, College

Teacher-Perpetrated Crime and Violence, High School Technological Responses, High School Technology and Campus Crime and Violence Teen Courts Tinker v. Des Moines School District Treacy, Wayne U United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Justice

Alphabetical List of Entries

V Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton Victimless Offenses, College Victimless Offenses, High School Video Games Violent Nonsexual Crimes, College Violent Nonsexual Crimes, High School Virginia Tech Massacre W Weise, Jeff

Whitman, Charles Wimberley, Teah Woodham, Luke Wurst, Andrew Y Youth Activism Youth Crime Watch of America Z Zero-Tolerance Laws

xi

This page intentionally left blank

Topical List of Entries

Kinkel, Kip Kretschmer, Tim La Salle University Sex Scandal and Cover-up Le´pine, Marc Lo, Wayne Loukaitis, Barry Lu, Gang Northern Illinois University Shooting Northwestern High School Sex Scandal Odighizuwa, Peter Owens, Dedrick Pennington, Douglas Poulin, Robert Prince, Phoebe Purdy, Patrick Ramsey, Evan Roberts, Charles Saari, Matti Solomon, T. J. Spencer, Brenda Spur Posse Steinha¨user, Robert Treacy, Wayne Virginia Tech Massacre Weise, Jeff Whitman, Charles Wimberley, Teah

Case Studies Auvinen, Pekka-Eric Bath, Michigan, School Bombing Baylor College Basketball Murder Case Beslan School Hostage Crisis Bias, Len Bishop, Amy Bosse, Sebastian Brazill, Nathaniel Brewer, Michael Carneal, Michael Columbine High School Massacre Coon, Asa Dann, Laurie Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine Attack on Ma’alot School Dhein, Alaa Abu Duke University Lacrosse Team Sexual Assault Case Flores, Robert Gill, Kimveer Glen Ridge, New Jersey, Rape Incident Hamilton, Thomas Houston, Eric Kent State National Guard Shootings King, Lawrence

xiii

xiv

Topical List of Entries

Woodham, Luke Wurst, Andrew Correlates Abuse and Crime and Violence ADD/ADHD Alcohol and School Crime and Violence Fear of School Crime and Violence Free Speech Mental Illness and School Crime and Violence Muslims and School Crime and Violence Parents and School Crime and Violence Prescription Drugs and School Crime and Violence School Crime and School Climate, College School Crime and School Climate, High School Social Networking Technology and Campus Crime and Violence Video Games Court Cases Board of Ed. of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education Goss v. Lopez New Jersey v. T.L.O. Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding Tinker v. Des Moines School District Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton

Global Comparison Africa and School Crime and Violence Asia and School Crime and Violence Canada and School Crime and Violence European Union and School Crime and Violence Latin America and School Crime and Violence Middle East and School Crime and Violence South America and School Crime and Violence Measuring Monitoring the Future Survey National Youth Survey School Crime Victimization Survey Media Bowling for Columbine Elephant Fiction and School Crime and Violence Jeremy Journals Devoted to School Crime and Violence Manson, Marilyn Moral Panics and Campus Crime and Violence Moral Panics and High School Crime and Violence Movies and School Crime and Violence Music and School Crime and Violence Natural Born Killers

Topical List of Entries

Organizations American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Amnesty International Big Brothers Big Sisters Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Central Asia Institute (CAI) Crime Stoppers Do Something Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Hamilton Fish Institute Human Rights Watch National School Safety Center National Threat Assessment Center National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Ophelia Project Peace and Justice Studies Association Safe Schools/GLSEN Save the Children Security on Campus, Inc. Southern Poverty Law Center Stop Bullying Now United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Justice Youth Crime Watch of America Prevention Athletes and Violence Prevention Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancements and Leadership Through Alliances (DELTA) Program Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)

Educational Programs and Training, College Educational Programs and Training, High School Expect Respect Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) Honor Codes Human Rights Education Mentoring Peace Education, College Peace Education, High School Responses Adult Trials for Juveniles Anger Management Anonymous Tip Lines Arts-Based Programs Bullying Laws Clery Act Comprehensive Crime Control Act Conflict Resolution/Peer Mediation Corporal Punishment Dress Codes Drug Testing Emergency Response Plans Gun Control Legislation Hazing Laws In loco parentis Metal Detectors No Child Left Behind Act Parens patriae Police and Surveillance, College Police and Surveillance, High School Policies and Campus Violence Laws Public Health Approach Punitive Responses, College Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP)

xv

xvi

Topical List of Entries

Restorative Justice Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act School-to-Prison Pipeline Search and Seizure, High School Technological Responses, High School Technology and Campus Crime and Violence Teen Courts Youth Activism Zero-Tolerance Laws Theory Biological Theories Choice Theories Conflict Theories Control Theories Gender-Related Theories Integrated Theories Labeling Theories Social Learning Theories Social Structure Theories Types of Crime/Violence Athletes and Crime and Violence, College Athletes and Crime and Violence, High School Bullycide Bullying, College Bullying, High School Crime and Violence in Private Secondary Schools Cyber-offenses, College Cyber-offenses, High School Dating Violence, College Dating Violence, High School Drug Offenses, College Drug Offenses, High School

Elementary Schools and Crime and Violence Gambling Gangs and School Crime and Violence Gender and School Crime and Violence, College Gender and School Crime and Violence, High School Hate Crimes, College Hazing, College Hazing, High School Middle Schools and Crime and Violence Professor-Perpetrated Crime and Violence Property Crimes, College Property Crimes, High School Race and School Crime and Violence Religion and High School Crime and Violence Rural School Violence Sexual Assault Crimes, College Sexual Assault Crimes, High School Sexual Harassment Sexual Orientation and School Crime and Violence, College Sexual Orientation and School Crime and Violence, High School Suburban School Violence Suicide, College Suicide, High School Systemic/Structural Violence, College Systemic/Structural Violence, High School Teacher-Perpetrated Crime and Violence, High School Victimless Offenses, College Victimless Offenses, High School Violent Nonsexual Crimes, College Violent Nonsexual Crimes, High School

Foreword

After speaking at a teachers’ convention a few years ago, I was approached by a man and his son. I guessed the boy was about 12. I had just finished a talk called “Dispute Resolution in Communities and Schools.” As a self-proclaimed “mediator,” I was director of a community mediation program seeking ways to partner with schools. “You’re a mediator?” I heard in the boy’s voice a mixture of amazement and amusement. His eyes were wide, “I never even saw a grown-up mediator before!” Was he questioning my existence, or his own experience? Then he asserted, “Mediation is for little kids.” My immediate response was to say, “Well, no, mediation is for everybody.” His father shushed him apologetically, a sheepish look on his face. Like a glimpse of the sun on a cloudy day, the moment and the boy were gone. I regret to this day my disagreeing with him. Perhaps he did not believe me at all, but he did give perhaps a fleeting thought to the notion that adults might mediate their disputes. Slow as I am, it was almost three weeks before I understood the boy’s message. I became aware that his perspective was true: In his world, mediation was for “little kids.” I supposed that perhaps his school had peer mediation in first or second grade in a simplified form such as the “peace bridge,” a script of questions for disputing children. His exposure to age-appropriate conflict resolution may have continued in middle school. Peer mediators selected from their class or grade level receive conflict management training, and as anointed or appointed, go forth to mediate disputes between students. However, this boy’s exposure to models in the adult world probably did not include collaboration, inquisitive dialogue, active listening, or respectful exchange of divergent views, values, opinions, or beliefs. As he said, he’d never even seen an adult mediator. As much as I wanted to deny it, I needed to listen to what he had said. I thought he was misinformed. I wanted to correct him, to set him on the right path. If I done myself what we teach others to do, I would have truly listened. I would have had the gift of his lesson sooner.

xvii

xviii

Foreword

The structured investigation of the phenomenon of school violence seemed to take on heightened urgency following the shooting at Columbine High School. The search for the causes and cures for violence has focused on schools and young people ever since. I wonder why youth violence seems to frighten us so: Is it because we want desperately to believe in the innocence of youth? Or is there something inherently risky and hence scary about the energy and the explosive emotion of adolescence? It is timely to question whether our actions are truly preventive or merely driven by fear. To paraphrase Harriet Lerner, “avoiding the things we fear programs the brain to see the fear as real.” Whenever I visit a school in my city, I am struck by the visual presentation of its facility—heavy black doors with no windows, bars on those windows that may remain, a buzzer at the door, metal detectors at the entry, uniformed security personnel. Perhaps it belabors the obvious to say that the need to examine school violence cannot be neatly compartmentalized separately from the examination of violence in the larger society. This assertion usually leads to debate about media violence, but I believe we generally miss an essential question. Any robust inquiry into how society’s violence is linked to school violence must include a critical look at society’s messages about whose violence is allowed (and whose is not). The bully in the classroom is not always another student. The bully in the classroom may sometimes be the teacher, or a parent, or the principal. Right by force is enacted daily by authority figures. The message is that some violence is allowed and yet, as a group, young people cannot engage in this behavior—they must be controlled. Any 12-year-old would naturally be impatient to “grow up” so that he or she could also enter the realm of those who are privileged to act with force in the name of authority—those whose violence is allowed. I leave for others to explain the violent systemic consequences of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, or the violence of poverty, racism, or classism. It is enough to say that the inquiry, analysis, and design of interventions cannot be narrowly focused on school and youth violence without consideration of the society in which they are immersed. An important paradigm shift in this regard began with the work of Deborah Prothrow-Stith in 1991. In her book Deadly Consequences, she reframed violence from a matter for criminal law to a public health issue. This shift continues to be supported by evidence that a punitive, punishment-based strategy alone does not prevent, and indeed may aggravate, serious violence. A public health framework applies a medical approach, and in this approach violence is viewed as a disease and interventions can be designed to address different levels of prevention. Using the public health paradigm’s framework, violence prevention may be approached with a three-part strategy. For example, a primary prevention strategy might address needs of the general population with curricula for social and emotional intelligence education—that is, development of empathy, forgiveness, and

Foreword

resiliency. Further, a secondary prevention strategy might address the needs of vulnerable individuals, with accommodations being made for those with special needs or those who require grief counseling. Lastly, a tertiary prevention strategy might address the needs of victims and actors of violence with forms of restorative justice, for example. Certainly, the “public health lens” view of violence as disease represents a significant step forward from the strictly punitive approach embodied in violence as crime. I believe that we continue to mix the paradigms of crime and disease, and that this practice has unintended results. We must be very careful in applying this metaphor by being precise about diagnosing a disease—a disease of what exactly? Even if we frame violence as a disease of the community, the temptation is to say that the individual who commits an act of violence is the disease and, therefore, must be excised from society. More incarceration is an answer, but one that produces only short-term results. More saliently, we must grapple with the notion that most of those whom we imprison will return to society eventually. This partial move to a health paradigm returns us to the strategies that delivered us incomplete interventions in the first place. It is time to consider information from other paradigms as a means to address school crime and violence. African thinkers, including Malidoma and Archbishop Tutu, identify a “lack of ubuntu” as a problem of Western society. This indicates a more proper view of violence as a disease of the body of the community; it posits that violence is a sign of improper functioning of the community. Violence is a symptom, not the disease, and every deliberate harmful act is a cry for help. Human beings are social creatures, with a fundamental need to belong to a community. Such needs are expressed as culture, fellowship, nurturing, learning, belonging, common beliefs, and mutuality. They inform and form us. It is no mistake that punishment often involves separation from loved ones; solitary confinement, isolation from all others, is one of the most severe punishments. Isolation causes stress and pain because it implies that you are not fit to belong with your community: moreover, it embodies rejection. Writing separately, Kenneth V. Hardy and John Gilligan identified factors that increase individual propensity to do violence. These issues all seem to revolve around losses associated with identity and community. Hardy’s aggravating factors are the devaluation of individual, disruption or erosion of community, dehumanization of loss, and suppression leading to rage. Cultural messages about strength and weakness can be misinterpreted, especially in unguided minds. In general, especially in Euro-American Western cultures, being “tough” is equated with being “strong.” To show weakness or vulnerability is so abhorrent that it evokes emotions of shame and fear. These serious threats to identity are resisted, such shame hidden by more “toughness.”

xix

xx

Foreword

The risk is that by not recognizing our human need for community, connection, and relationships, well-intentioned interventions will create more problems than they solve. To implement secondary and tertiary interventions, those who are “at risk” or “in need” must first be identified for suitable treatments. The diagnosis leads to the categorization of human beings that, while well intentioned, may have unintended and perhaps detrimental consequences. The labels become incorporated into an individual’s Identity and often become self-fulfilling. The unavoidable message is that there is something “different” about you, something “wrong,” “bad,” “needs fixing.” Such messages are damaging and hurtful, especially when they are delivered during the specific stages in a human being’s development involving the formation of identity and true self-esteem. To take the next step, I suggest that the next paradigm shift needs to move from a medical model of public health to a wellness paradigm. It is not enough to prevent disease (prevent violence); our society should be focused on creating health (support human flourishing). We can begin by asking different questions. Whether framed as the long-term consequences of unacknowledged loss or the death or denial of self through shame, some individuals who suffer traumatic losses, grief, extreme stress, hardships, or poverty never act out violently. The trajectory to violence is not inevitable. Research has identified factors that can act as counter-measures to the proclivity toward violence. Studies examining factors that build resiliency indicate that recovery from loss and psychological healing requires outside assistance, however. Thus the presence of mentoring, strong social support, and prosocial behaviors are essential to change the current trend. Shame is overcome with true self-esteem, which has two aspects: competency and deservedness. True self-esteem is not supported by having things given or done for you—the help that cripples is not really help. A child who makes a mistake needs consistent correction, support, and encouragement, not punishment. Growing up is a complicated and difficult business, requiring structure and discipline. We can begin by overcoming our fears of “going soft” and ignoring complaints that this is “warm and fuzzy.” Such demurrals are unwarranted. Offering a genuinely helping hand is actually much harder than sending children to the principal’s office, or handcuffing them, or suspending them, or expelling them. Lately the word “accountability” has come into vogue. I am intrigued by the number of contexts and meanings this word seems to bring to the fore. In it, I hear mixed conceptions about responsibility. If we use “accountability” in its pastoriented view, responsibility is assigned in form of blame with the goal to punish those whom we find at fault. This practice alone does not support the creation of healthy people (supporting human flourishing). If, however, we use “accountability” with a future orientation, responsibility lies with those who may have the power to effect change. In fact, we all have the power to change—ourselves.

Foreword

Together we may contribute to healing from what was handed to us from the past. With this form of accountability, true progress may be made. My lesson from the boy at the conference was that to rest social change solely on the backs of children is a recipe for failure. If we would ask a fourth grader to resist striking a classmate over a misspoken word or broken toy, we must be able to demonstrate the same self-discipline in our own words and deeds. It is simply inconsistent (and hence hypocritical) to insist that children find peaceful means to seek redress of their harms, when we adults come to “town hall meetings” in polarized camps and scream at one another. Especially where a child sees adult models in his or her school, community, or home life employing only coercive authority, the conclusion is accurate: Peaceful conflict resolution is in truth for “little kids.” The children who learn this lesson will await the day when they can also enforce their wants and needs on others by dint of power. If we will permit some people in some contexts to enact violence on other human beings, the taint of hypocrisy will forever color our messages lecturing nonviolence. We learn what we live. The difference is that adults presumably know better. It is time we all DO better. Evelyn Ang

xxi

This page intentionally left blank

Preface

When I was teaching at a university in Colorado, a student once told me, “You know, Columbine used to be known as the state flower. But now . . . ” Her observation is instructive. Since the early 1990s, and in particular after the massacre at Columbine High School in 1999, school violence has received a great deal of attention—from media, from lawmakers, from parents, and from school districts. The series of high-profile shootings in schools—perhaps starting when 14-yearold Barry Loukaitis killed a teacher and two students in Moses Lake, Washington in 1996—was indeed troubling. Yet some critics were concerned that this clamor represented a moral panic about school violence. They noted that even during the 1990s, schools remained among the safest places for young people. In fact, some people have complained that the way schools have responded to the threat of school violence is actually more dangerous than the threat posed by students. Additionally, critics have pointed out that, until the shooting at Virginia Tech in 2007, very little attention was focused on college campuses, yet students were at risk here as well. It is true that certain types of crime and violence in and around school and university campuses occur with regularity. But, instead of the extreme cases involving an armed gunman (and the rare female shooter), the greatest risk actually stems from the more mundane property crime. Additionally, dating violence, racerelated offenses, and other forms of harassment are commonplace in educational institutions. Technology has worsened the situation, with rates of cyber-offenses strikingly high, although accurate statistics on this phenomenon are difficult to find. Further, when drug and alcohol use and abuse are included in the picture, we see that not only is crime and violence in and around schools an issue of concern, but one that most people have misunderstood. Many times, stereotypes and misconceptions prevent us from recognizing, and thus appropriately responding to, other forms of crime and violence. If school crime and violence is a major issue, what is the cause? Are out-ofcontrol kids to blame? The media? Poor parenting? Weak gun control laws?

xxiii

xxiv

Preface

A drug culture? Or something else entirely? This book is intended to help readers develop an informed opinion about the issue. It provides information about the scope and extent of crime and violence on school and university campuses, including incidents involving shootings as well as property crimes, hate crimes, cyberoffenses, sexual crimes, and more. Key points made in this book include the following: • School crime and violence is difficult to measure (readers will learn why). • Violence and crime occur at all levels of schooling, from kindergarten through college. • There is no specific “profile” of a perpetrator—even educators are sometimes violent against students. • Perpetrators have different motives for different types of offenses, and criminological theory can help us understand these rationales. • Responses to school crime and violence vary, and many have rarely been evaluated. • There are a great deal of great resources available for youth, parents, educators, and the general reader who wants to know more, get involved, or get help. The entries in this book are organized alphabetically. A list of entries by topic is included for ease of use as well. Further, readers will find a timeline of significant events related to school and campus crime and violence at the beginning of the book. In addition to the thorough and current entries authored by experts in the field, the book includes a list of recommended books, journals, and websites for further investigation. Finally, discussion questions and activity ideas for teachers are included so that students can extend their understanding of school and campus crime and violence beyond what they read here. Having taught high school through the Columbine era, and now as a college professor and a community trainer and peace activist, it is my hope that this book will be a useful reference on an essential topic. Even more, I hope that we are able to apply our greater understanding of school and campus crime and violence to better respond to incidents when they occur and to craft more effective prevention programs.

Acknowledgments

In undertaking a multivolume like this, it is essential to surround yourself with helpful people! To that end, my sincere gratitude goes out to all the contributors who worked hard to ensure the entries in this book are informative and up-todate. Thanks also to those who made suggestions for topics to be included and gave ideas for resources, films, teaching ideas and discussion questions. Each contributor offers a unique perspective based on his or her background, life experience, and world view, which makes this volume exemplary (in my opinion). The contributors to this book represent a variety of scholarly fields and are involved in a number of organizations and activities that lend them expertise about school crime and violence. In particular, I am proud that several of my current and former Barry University and Florida Atlantic University students contributed to this volume. I would also like to thank Sandy Towers of ABC-CLIO, who worked with me on this project from the start. Originally one book, Sandy helped ensure a contract for an expanded volume, gave me wonderful ideas for the direction of the book, and checked in regularly enough to keep me on task. This is my second project with Sandy and I have found her to be a supportive and thorough editor. I have edited the book as well as possible. At this point, any errors are mine.

Dedication As in all things I do, I dedicate this book to my family. My husband, Peter, and my daughter, Anya, who ended up on several “daddy-daughter dates” so that mom had time to work. Anya, I know you believe in peace and will help ensure that this book quickly becomes useful only as a matter of history! I would also like to dedicate this book to all my students at Barry University, who get to hear pieces of my work all the time (like it or not) and who, unbeknownst to them, inspired several of the entries that are included.

xxv

xxvi

Acknowledgments

I also dedicate this book to all the amazing people working in schools, organizations, or simply raising children in peaceful ways. In particular, I dedicate this book to my twin sister, Sarah, who is the best teacher I know. She brings humor and humanity to the classroom and is a model for all. Finally, I hope that this book can in some small way help better the situation for young people in schools and colleges and for the tireless educators working in them. I truly believe that informed discourse about critical topics like school and campus crime and violence can help us move forward with exciting, innovative, and effective policies and practices that make peace, not violence, the norm. Further, I am also committed to helping outside of academia. I am dedicating half of all royalties from this book to No More Tears, a non-profit that provides assistance to victims of domestic and dating violence and their children. As of this writing, No More Tears has rescue forty women and their children, providing them safe housing, food and clothing, and above all, support. It is my pleasure to be able to help this organization, and my good friend Somy Ali, in whatever ways I can.

Timeline of Significant Events Related to School Crime and Violence

May 18, 1927

School board member Andrew Kehoe, 55, kills his wife and sets fire to his farm buildings. Bombs he has planted over the course of several months explode at Bath Consolidated School, killing 45 and injuring 58.

August 1, 1966

Charles Whitman, 25, shoots and kills 14 and wounds 32 others, mostly from an observation tower at the University of Texas at Austin.

February 8, 1968

Policemen kill three and wound 27 unarmed South Carolina State University students who are protesting the segregation of a local bowling alley.

May 4, 1970

Members of the Ohio National Guard fire 67 rounds in just 13 seconds, killing four unarmed Kent State University students who are protesting the expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia.

May 14–15, 1970

Police shoot and kill two Jackson State College students who are protesting the Vietnam War. Twelve others are wounded.

May 15, 1974

Three members of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine shoot and kill 22 Israeli high school students in Ma’alot, Israel.

December 30, 1974

Anthony Barbaro, 18, sets off homemade bombs and firearms at school in Olean, New York. He fires at janitors and responding fire fighters, then commits suicide while awaiting trial for the crime.

xxvii

xxviii

Timeline of Significant Events Related to School Crime and Violence

May 28, 1975

Michael Slobodian, 16, kills a classmate and an English teacher and wounds 13 others at Brampton Centennial Secondary School in Ontario, Canada. Slobodian commits suicide in a school bathroom.

October 21, 1975

Robert Poulin, 18, shoots and kills one and wounds five others, then commits suicide at St. Pius X High School in Ottawa, Canada.

July 12, 1976

Custodian Edward Charles Allaway, 37, kills two and wounds seven in the library basement at California State University–Fullerton. He is committed to the California state mental hospital system.

May 19, 1978

Honors student John Christian, 13, shoots and kills his teacher in Austin, Texas.

October 15, 1978

In Lanett, Alabama, Robin Robinson, 13, is paddled by school administrators after a disagreement with another student. He returns to the school and shoots the principal.

January 29, 1979

Brenda Spencer, 16, shoots and kills the principal and a janitor, and wounds nine students and adults in San Carlos, California. She uses a sniper rifle she had received for Christmas.

March 19, 1982

Patrick Lazotte kills one and wounds two at Valley High School in Las Vegas, Nevada. Lazotte has been bullied for 12 years.

January 20, 1983

David F. Lawler, a freshman, kills one student when he opens fire in a study hall classroom at Parkway South Junior High School in St. Louis, Missouri. Lawler commits suicide.

January 21, 1985

James Alan Kearby, 14, kills his principal and three students who were bullying him at his junior high school in Goddard, Kansas.

March 2, 1987

Twelve-year-old Nathan Ferris kills the boy who has picked on him and then kills himself at a Missouri school.

February 11, 1988

Jason Harless and Jason McCoy use stolen guns to kill Principal Richard Allen and wound two others at Pinellas Park High School in Pinellas Park, Florida.

Timeline of Significant Events Related to School Crime and Violence

May 20, 1988

Laurie Dann, 30, attempts to poison family and friends and then kills one boy and wounds five other students at an elementary school in Winnetka, Illinois. She then takes a family hostage and shoots another man before killing herself.

September 30, 1988

James William Wilson, Jr., 19, shoots and kills one student and wounds 14 elementary school students and a teacher with a .22-caliber pistol in Greenwood, South Carolina.

December 16, 1988

Nicholas Elliott, 16, kills one teacher and wounds another in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

December 6, 1989

Marc Le´pine, 25, orders all the men to leave a classroom at the University of Montreal School of Engineering and then kills nine women. Le´pine kills five more people outside the classroom, before then killing himself.

September 27, 1990

Curtis Collins shoots one student at El Dorado High School in Las Vegas, Nevada.

November 1, 1991

Gang Lu, 28, shoots and kills four faculty members and one student at the University of Iowa. Another student is wounded before Lu commits suicide.

May 1, 1992

Eric Houston, 20, shoots and kills four students and wounds 10 at his former high school in Olivehurst, California.

August 24, 1992

Dr. Valery I. Frabricant kills four colleagues and wounds a staff member at Concordia University in Montreal, Quebec.

November 20, 1992

Joseph White, 15, shoots another student at Tilden High School in Chicago, Illinois. The shooting is gang related.

December 14, 1992

Wayne Lo, 18, kills one student and one professor and wounds four others at Simon’s Rock College of Bard in Massachusetts before surrendering to the police.

January 18, 1993

Gary Scott Pennington, 19, holds a teacher and custodian hostage at his high school in Grayson, Kentucky.

February 22, 1993

Robert Heard, 15, shoots a student who had transferred to Reseda High School in California to flee gang violence.

xxix

xxx

Timeline of Significant Events Related to School Crime and Violence

March 18, 1993

Edward Gillom, 15, kills one student and wounds another at Harlem High School in Harlem, Georgia. He claims to have been bullied.

March 25, 1993

Lawanda Jackson, 19, shoots and kills her ex-boyfriend at Sumner High School in St. Louis, Missouri.

March 26, 1993

Five students get into a fight over the previous night’s track meet at Lamar High School in Bryan, Texas. One student is stabbed to death.

April 12, 1993

Karter Reed, 16, stabs and kills one student, whom he thought was someone else, at Dartmouth High School in Dartmouth, Massachusetts.

April 14, 1993

Max Martinez, 17, kills one student who had insulted his girlfriend at Nimitz High School in Irving, Texas.

May 15, 1993

Eric Schmitt, 42, takes 21 students and their teacher hostage at Commandant Charcto Nursery School in Neuillysur-Seine, France.

December 1, 1993

Leonard McDowell, 21, shoots and kills an associate principal who had suspended him from school at Wauwatosa West High School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. McDowell had entered the building in violation of a restraining order sought by a teacher with whom he was obsessed.

April 4, 1994

Flemming Nielsen, 35, shoots and kills two and wounds two others at Aarhus University in Denmark.

April 12, 1994

James Osmanson, 10, shoots and kills a classmate on the playground at Margaret Leary Elementary School in Butte, Montana. Osmanson was aiming at another boy who had been bullying him for years.

May 26, 1994

Clay Shrout, 17, kills his parents and two younger sisters and then takes a class hostage at his high school. Assistant Principal Steve Sorrell convinces Shrout to give up his gun before anyone else is hurt.

November 7, 1994

Keith Ledeger, 37, a former student, kills a custodian and wounds three others at Wickliffe Middle School in Wickliffe, Ohio.

Timeline of Significant Events Related to School Crime and Violence

October 12, 1995

Suspended student Toby Sincino, 16, kills three people with a .32-caliber revolver in Blackville, South Carolina.

November 15, 1995

Jamie Rouse, 17, kills a teacher and student and wounds another teacher at Richland High School in Lynnville, Tennessee.

February 2, 1996

In Moses Lake, Washington, Barry Loukaitis, 14, opens fire on a junior high school algebra class, killing two students and one teacher and wounding another student.

March 13, 1996

Thomas Hamilton kills 16 children and one teacher, and wounds 10 others, at Dunblane Primary School in Dunblane, Scotland.

March 25, 1996

Anthony Gene Rutherford, 18; Jonathon Dean Moore,15; and Joseph Stanley Burris, 15, kill a student they believe planned to tell about their plot to attack the school in Patterson, Missouri.

August 15, 1996

Frederick Martin Davidson, a 36-year-old graduate student, shoots and kills three professors at San Diego State University.

September 17, 1996

Jillian Robbins, 19, kills one student and wounds another at Pennsylvania State University.

February 19, 1997

Evan Ramsey, 16, kills one student and the school principal, and wounds two others, with a shotgun he uses in the high school commons room in Bethel, Alaska.

March 30, 1997

Mohammad Ahman al-Nazari, 48, shoots and kills six and wounds 12 with an illegally obtained assault rifle at Tala’I Private School in Sanaa, Yemen.

October 1, 1997

Luke Woodham, 16, kills his own mother, then shoots two students and wounds seven at his high school in Pearl, Mississippi.

December 1, 1997

Michael Carneal, 14, kills three students and wounds five who were involved in a prayer circle at his high school in West Paducah, Kentucky.

December 15, 1997

Joseph “Colt” Todd, 14, shoots two students whom he said humiliated him in Stamps, Arkansas.

xxxi

xxxii

Timeline of Significant Events Related to School Crime and Violence

March 9, 1998

Jeffrey Lance Pennick II, 18, kills one student and wounds two at Central Avenue Elementary School in Summit, Washington.

March 24, 1998

Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, kill one teacher and four students, and wound 10 others, when they shoot at their school from the nearby woods in Jonesboro, Arkansas.

April 24, 1998

Andrew Wurst, 14, kills one teacher and wounds one teacher and two students at a school dance for Parker Middle School in Edinboro, Pennsylvania.

May 21, 1998

Kip Kinkel, 15, kills both his parents, then kills two students and wounds 23 others when he opens fire on his high school cafeteria in Springfield, Oregon.

June 15, 1998

Quinshawn Booker, 14, shoots one teacher and wounds a guidance counselor in the hallway of his high school in Richmond, Virginia.

April 20, 1999

Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, shoot and kill 14 students, one teacher, and themselves at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Twenty-three students and teachers are wounded in the attack.

April 28, 1999

Todd Cameron Smith, 14, shoots and kills one student and wounds another in what is believed to be a Columbine “copycat” attack at W. R. Myers High School in Taber, Alberta, Canada.

May 20, 1999

Thomas “T.J.” Solomon, 15, wounds six students with a .22-caliber rifle at his high school in Conyers, Georgia.

November 19, 1999

Victor Cordova, 12, kills one student with a .22-caliber handgun in the lobby of his school in Deming, New Mexico.

December 6, 1999

Seth Trickey, 13, wounds four students when he shoots them with a 9-mm semi-automatic gun at his middle school in Fort Gibson, Oklahoma.

February 29, 2000

Dedrick Owens, 6, finds a loaded gun at his uncle’s house and brings it to school, shooting 6-year-old Kayla Rolland at Buell Elementary School in Flint, Michigan.

Timeline of Significant Events Related to School Crime and Violence

March 16, 2000

Nathaniel Brazill, 13, kills his teacher with a .25-caliber semi-automatic pistol on the last day of classes in Lake Worth, Florida.

March 5, 2001

Charles Andrew “Andy” Williams, 15, kills two students in the high school bathroom in Santee, California.

March 7, 2001

Elizabeth Catherine Bush, 14, shoots and wounds a female student in the high school cafeteria in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.

March 22, 2001

Jason Hoffman, 18, kills four students and two teachers at his high school in El Cajon, California.

May 7, 2001

Jason Pritchard, 33, cuts and stabs four elementary school students on their playground in Anchorage, Alaska.

June 8, 2001

Mamoru Takuma fatally stabs eight and injures 13 at Ikeda Elementary School in Osaka, Japan.

November 13, 2011

Chris Buschbacher, 17, takes two students and one teacher from his high school hostage in Caro, Michigan. He releases all of them, and then commits suicide.

December 5, 2001

Corey Ramos, 17, stabs and kills his principal in Springfield, Massachusetts.

January 16, 2002

Peter Odighizuwa, 43, a former student, shoots and kills three and wounds three others at Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia.

March 2, 2002

Mike Placencia, 14, stabs a student who made a racist remark in Cashmere, Washington.

April 26, 2002

Robert Steinhauser, 19, kills 13 teachers, two students, and one police officer at Johann Gutenberg Secondary School in Erfurt, Germany. Steinhauser commits suicide.

April 29, 2002

Dragoslav Petkovic, 17, shoots and kills a teacher and wounds another before he commits suicide in Vlasenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

October 28, 2002

Robert Flores, Jr., 41, kills three female nursing professors and then himself at the University of Arizona.

April 14, 2003

Steven Williams and James Tate, kill one student at John McDonogh High School in New Orleans, Louisiana.

xxxiii

xxxiv

Timeline of Significant Events Related to School Crime and Violence

April 24, 2003

James Sheets, 14, shoots and kills his middle school principal and then himself in Red Lion, Pennsylvania.

May 9, 2003

Biswanath Halder, a former student, kills one student and wounds a professor and a student at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.

September 24, 2003

Jason McLaughlin, 15, shoots and kills two students at Rocori High School in Cold Spring, Minnesota.

September 1, 2004

A group of Muslim pro-Chechen rebels take more than 1,200 schoolchildren and adults hostage in Beslan, North Ossetia-Alania. After a three-day standoff, Russian security forces storm the building. A series of explosions, followed by a fire and gunfire exchanges, results in the death of at least 334 hostages, including 186 children.

March 21, 2005

Jeff Weise, 16, kills his grandfather and grandfather’s girlfriend before shooting and killing five students, a teacher, a security guard, and then himself at his high school on Red Lake Indian Reservation in Minnesota.

November 8, 2005

Kenny Bartley, 15, kills Assistant Principal Ken Bruce and wounds two other administrators at his high school in Jacksboro, Tennessee.

August 24, 2006

Christopher Williams, 27, shoots and kills his exgirlfriend’s mother. He then attempts to find his exgirlfriend at the school where she is a teacher. When he cannot locate her, Williams kills one teacher and wounds another. He attempts suicide but is captured instead.

September 13, 2006

Kimveer Gill, 25, shoots 20 people at Dawson College in Montreal, Canada. One victim dies on the spot. Gill commits suicide after being shot in the arm by a police officer.

September 27, 2006

Duane Morrison, 53, takes six girls hostage for hours, molesting them before shooting and killing one girl and then himself, at Platte Canyon High School in Bailey, Colorado.

September 29, 2006

Eric Hainstock, 15, shoots and kills his principal in Cazenovia, Wisconsin.

Timeline of Significant Events Related to School Crime and Violence

October 2, 2006

Charles Roberts, 32, ties up and then kills five girls at an Amish school in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania. Five others were injured before Roberts kills himself.

November 20, 2006

Sebastian Bosse, 18, shoots five people at his former high school in Emsdetten, Germany. When they enter the school, police commandos find Bosse dead.

April 16, 2007

Seung-Hui Cho, a senior, shoots and kills 32 and wounds many others at Virginia Tech College in Blacksburg, Virginia.

September 21, 2007

Loyer Braden, 18, shoots and kills two fellow Delaware State University students.

October 10, 2007

Asa Coon, 14, shoots and kills two students and two teachers, and then commits suicide, at SuccessTech alternative high school in Cleveland, Ohio.

November 7, 2007

Pekka-Eric Auvinen, 18, shoots and kills eight people and then himself at a high school in Tuusula, Finland.

February 8, 2008

Latina Williams, 23, shoots and kills two students, and then commits suicide, at Louisiana Tech College in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

February 12, 2008

Brandon McInerney, 14, shoots and kills Lawrence King because he was gay at E. O. Green School in Oxnard, California.

February 14, 2008

Steven Kazmierczak, 27, a former student, shoots and kills six people and wounds 18 on the campus of Northern Illinois University.

August 21, 2008

Jamar Siler, 15, shoots and kills a fellow student at Central High School in Knoxville, Tennessee.

September 23, 2008

Matti Juhani Saari, 22, shoots and kills 10 people at the vocational college he attends in Kauhajoki, Finland.

October 26, 2008

Four men (Kawin Brockton, 19; Kelsey Perry, 19; Mario Tony, 20; and Brandon Wade, 20) shoot and kill two University of Central Arkansas students and wound a visitor.

xxxv

xxxvi

Timeline of Significant Events Related to School Crime and Violence

November 13, 2008

Teah Wemberly, 15, shoots and kills friend Amanda Collette at Dillard High School in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

March 6, 2008

Alaa Abu Dhein, 26, shoots and kills eight students and wounds 11 at Mercaz Herav Yeshiva, a religious school in Jerusalem, Israel.

March 11, 2009

Tim Kretschmer, 17, a former student, shoots and kills 15 at Albertville Secondary School in Winnenden, Germany.

April 30, 2009

Farda Gadyrov, 29, kills 12 and wounds 13 before killing himself at Azerbaijan State Oil Academy in Azerbaijan.

September 15, 2009

Andy Rodriquez, 17, stabs a classmate to death in Coral Gables, Florida.

September 23, 2009

A 16-year-old student stabs a Special Education teacher in Tyler, Texas. The teacher later dies from the attack. The name of the student was not released due to privacy laws pertaining to special needs students.

October 16, 2009

Trevor Varinecz, 16, is shot and killed by a school resource officer after allegedly stabbing the officer in an altercation in Conway, South Carolina.

January 14, 2010

Phoebe Prince commits suicide after being bullied at South Hadley High School in Hadley, Massachusetts.

February 12, 2010

Biology Professor Amy Bishop kills three faculty members and wounds three employees at the University of Alabama at Huntsville.

February 23, 2010

Bruco Strongeagle Eastwood, 32, allegedly shoots at Middle School students as school lets out in Littleton, Colorado. Two eighth-grade students are injured.

March 9, 2010

Nathaniel Brown, 51, a custodian who had been told he was being fired, kills one coworker and wounds another at Ohio State University.

March 17, 2010

Wayne Treacy, 15, brutally beats and stomps Jose Lou Ratley in Deerfield Beach, Florida. Ratley survives the attack.

Timeline of Significant Events Related to School Crime and Violence

April 2010

Xu Yuyuan, 47, stabs 28 children and two adults in an elementary school in China. It is China’s fifth attack on schoolchildren in just over a month.

September 2010

A spate of gay teens commit suicide after being bullied by their peers.

October 2010

President Barack Obama, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton speak out against bullying.

xxxvii

This page intentionally left blank

A Abuse and Crime and Violence Children and youth who have experienced abuse are at risk for subsequent victimization. Additionally, those who have experienced abuse at home are more likely to become perpetrators of violent crime. A number of forms of child abuse exist, including verbal abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, negligence, and maltreatment. Although it is sometimes difficult to clearly differentiate between child abuse and parental discipline, the difference generally lies in societal norms and in long-term impact. Corporal punishment, or spanking, results in immediate pain but does not generally leave red marks or bruising. Abuse violates current conceptions of what is appropriate parental discipline in a given culture. Child sexual abuse involves an adult utilizing his or her position of power to force or coerce a child into sexual activity. Sexual intercourse is the most severe form of sexual abuse. Sexual exploitation involves allowing, permitting, or encouraging a child to engage in prostitution; or allowing, permitting, encouraging, or engaging in obscene or pornographic photographing, filming, or depiction of a child. Negligence refers to any act or omission that demonstrates a serious disregard for a child or youth. Negligent behavior results in a clear and present danger to the child’s welfare, health, or safety. Failure to provide adequate nutrition, clothing, access to education, and medical care are examples of negligence. Emotional abuse includes actions or omissions that cause or could cause serious behavioral, cognitive, emotional, or mental disorders. Although it is difficult to measure child abuse because it is notoriously underreported, data show it is terribly common. More than 3 million incidents of child abuse are reported annually in the United States, which means a report is occurring every 10 seconds. Almost five children die every day as a result of child abuse. More than three out of four are younger than the age of four years. One study combined

1

2

Abuse and Crime and Violence

childhood exposure to all forms of violence (including child abuse, domestic violence, and other forms of community violence) and found that 60% of children in the United States had experienced at least one type of violence. Child abuse has significant, long-term effects. Abused children are more likely to have difficulties in school, engage in risky substance abuse, and experience depression, suicidal behavior, promiscuity, anger/aggression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Exposure to domestic violence in the home is also damaging. The United Nations’ Secretary General’s Study of Violence Against Children in 2006 found a staggering 275 million children worldwide are exposed to violence in the home. Children who experience domestic violence in the home are also more likely to be abused themselves. Both experiences increase the likelihood that they will continue the cycle of abuse as adults. Approximately 30% of abused and neglected children will later abuse their own children. Children who have been abused are significantly more likely to end up in juvenile detention or prison. Children who experience child abuse and neglect are 59% more likely to be arrested as juveniles, 28% more likely to be arrested as adults, and 30% more likely to commit violent crime. Fourteen percent of all men in prison in the United States were abused as children, and 36% of all women in prison were abused as children. Exposure to or experience of abuse dramatically increases the individual’s risk of engaging in substance abuse. Children who have been sexually abused are 2.5 times more likely to abuse alcohol and 3.8 times more likely develop drug addictions. Nearly two-thirds of the people in treatment for drug abuse report being abused as children. Several of the infamous school shooters reportedly experienced abuse when they were young. Evan Ramsey, who killed two and wounded two others at his high school in Bethel, Alaska, was said to have been abused by several foster parents. Brenda Spencer, known as the United States’ first school shooter, alleged that her father sexually abused her, although the allegations were never substantiated. Asa Coon, who wounded four people at his school in Cleveland, Ohio, in 2007, grew up witnessing domestic violence in the home, which has also been linked to some of the same adverse effects as has child abuse. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Child Maltreatment. (2003). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm03/chapterthree.htm#types Langman, P. (2009). Expanding the samples: Five school shooters. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from http://www.schoolshooters.info/expanding-the-sample.pdf

ADD/ADHD

Mignon, S., Larson, C., & Holmes, W. (2002). Family abuse: Consequences, theories, and responses. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. National Child Abuse Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.childhelp.org/ pages/statistics UNICEF. (2006). Behind closed doors: The impact of domestic violence on children. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from http://www.unicef.org/protection/files/ BehindClosedDoors.pdf

ADD/ADHD Attention-deficit disorder (ADD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are among the most frequent diagnoses in child and adolescent psychiatry. Diagnosis for these disorders began around 1980. Before that time, they were called different things, such as hyperkinetic disorder. In 1987, the American Psychiatric Association added ADHD to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. A child or adolescent may be diagnosed with ADD or ADHD if he or she exhibits the following behaviors: attention difficulties/short attention span, motor hyperactivity, restless behavior, impulsivity, temper outbursts, and distractibility. Persons with ADHD or ADD often struggle in educational settings. Many are chronically truant as a result of their disorder. Children and youth with ADD/ ADHD often exhibit hostile attributional biases, which refers to the tendency to interpret ambiguous social cues as being hostile. This problem may lead to verbally or physically aggressive behavior, which can then result in suspension or expulsion from school. Because students with ADD/ADHD find it difficult to achieve in a traditional school setting, they may be placed in special education programs. Many ADD/ADHD-diagnosed children and youth experience comorbidity— that is, the co-occurrence of other disorders. Common comorbid diagnoses or disorders include conduct disorder, learning disabilities, anxiety disorders, Tourette’s syndrome or some other type of tic, affective disorders, and personality disorders. Persons with ADD/ADHD are also more likely to have substance abuse problems. All of these factors place them, according to some studies, at high risk for criminal offending. Critics contend that ADD/ADHD is over-diagnosed. A 2002 study found that as many as 16% of school-aged children in the United States could have ADD/ ADHD—a far greater percentage than the previous estimate of 3% to 5%. Some contend that this trend toward diagnosing young people with ADD/ADHD is simply a reflection of a culture of short attention spans. Kids face more stressors today, in particular at schools that engage in high-stakes testing, and critics

3

4

ADD/ADHD

Actress Kirstie Alley displays a picture of Raymond Perone, a 10-year-old suicide victim, while testifying in front of the Florida House Education Council in favor of a bill to limit the prescribing of psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin in Tallahassee, Florida, on April 19, 2005. According to Marla Filidei of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, Raymond committed suicide while experiencing withdrawal from Ritalin. (AP/Wide World Photos)

contend perhaps it is unfair to expect young people to be attentive in these ways. While some go so far as to question whether ADD and ADHD are really disorders at all, many simply assert that the diagnostic process is far too subjective. There is no independent, valid test for ADD/ADHD. As a consequence, it is easy to diagnose a child or adolescent with ADD/ADHD. Another concern is that, once a person is diagnosed with ADD/ADHD, the primary intervention is the prescription of some psychoactive drug, such as methylphenidate, typically Ritalin or Adderall. These drugs are stimulants much like cocaine, and can have dangerous side effects, including mood swings and loss of appetite. Between 1990 and 1996, prescriptions for methylphenidate increased 500%. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) noted that, in some locations,

Adult Trials for Juveniles

15% to 20% of young people had been prescribed Ritalin, and a Journal of the American Medical Association report found prescriptions for preschool-age children had tripled during the 1990s. Between 1990 and 2000, 569 children were hospitalized and 186 died due to taking Ritalin, according to some scholars. A similar trend of overprescribing Ritalin has been documented in the United Kingdom. Between 1995 and 2000, Britain saw a ninefold increase in the number of children being prescribed this drug. Several infamous school shooters had been taking prescription drugs at the time of their attacks. T. J. Solomon was taking Ritalin when he went on a shooting spree at his Georgia high school, and some evidence suggests Kip Kinkel had taken Ritalin as well. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Barkley, R., & Murphy, L. (1998). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A clinical workbook. New York: Guilford. Death from Ritalin. (n.d.). Retrieved April 16, 2010, from http://www.ritalindeath .com/ADHD-Truths.htm Haislip, G. (1996). DEA report: ADD/ADHD statement of Drug Enforcement Administration. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from http://www.add-adhd.org/ ritalin.html Smith, L. (2000, April 25). Kids on pills: BBC documentary examines increase in prescription drug use amongst children. World Socialist website. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/apr2000/rit-a25.shtml Zahn, P. (2002, March 15). The big question: Is ADD overdiagnosed? CNN. Retrieved April 16, 2010, from http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0203/15/ ltm.01.html

Adult Trials for Juveniles In recent years, more juveniles have been tried as adults in criminal courts. What juveniles experience in adult court stands in stark contrast to their experiences in juvenile court. The first juvenile court was created around the turn of the 20th century. It was purposely set up to meet the unique needs of young people. Procedures in the juvenile court differ from those used in the criminal courts. Because of those differences, juveniles are not afforded some of the same legal protections as are adults. Most laws allowing for juveniles to be tried as adults were passed in the 1990s in response to moral panics about youth and school violence. The case of 11-year-old Nathaniel Abraham in Michigan highlighted this issue.

5

6

Adult Trials for Juveniles

Although the United States has a separate juvenile court system, there are several ways juveniles can be tried as adults. Judicial waivers, also known as discretionary waivers, allow juvenile court judges to make the decision that a specific individual should be tried in adult court, based on a motion filed by the prosecutor. Judges assess the severity of the incident and decide whether they believe the perpetrator is amenable to rehabilitation before issuing the judicial waiver. In some cases, known as presumptive waivers, judges are required by statute to waive juvenile defendants to adult court unless the juvenile can document that he or she is capable of being rehabilitated. Legislative waivers, also known as statutory exclusion, involve laws that specify when juveniles must be tried as adults. Some legislation specifies particular ages whereby a juvenile must be transferred to adult court or specific offenses that must be waived. Concurrent jurisdiction allows prosecutors to retain the discretion regarding whether juveniles will be tried in juvenile or adult court. In blended sentencing, juvenile and criminal courts may render sentencing at the same time, requiring an individual to serve, for instance, a short time as a juvenile and then an additional short sentence as an adult. Between 1994 and 2000, the rates of waivers fluctuated between 6,000 and 12,000 annually. Florida led the nation in the number of youth tried as adults in the 1990s and 2000s. In 2000, 466 youth were incarcerated in Florida state prisons. One-fourth of the youth tried as adults in Florida were mixed into the adult prison population. In 2006, an estimated 200,000 juveniles were tried as adults in the United States, representing an increase of more than 200% since the 1990s. Critics contend that many of the juveniles who are waived to adult court are not serious, violent offenders. Regardless of the severity of the offense, at some point these juveniles will be released from prison. When they are housed with the most dangerous adult offenders, they may come out of prison even more dangerous than when they entered. Research has shown that juveniles who are held in adult prisons are significantly more likely to experience abuse and are more likely to reoffend than are comparable youth held in juvenile facilities. Moreover, research has not confirmed that trying juveniles as adults helps reduce crime. Finally, research suggests that juveniles do not understand the adult court system well enough to aid in their own defense. The case of 14-year-old Nathaniel Brazill was one of the first to shed light on the issue of trying as adults juveniles who perpetrated crimes at schools. Teah Wemberly, who was 15 at the time she shot a classmate at Dillard High School in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, was tried as an adult; she was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison. Wayne Treacey, who brutally attacked and almost killed classmate Josie Ratley, was also 15 at the time of his crime; he will be tried as an adult in Florida as well. Three of the boys who attacked 15-year-old Michael Brewer of Deerfield Beach, Florida, were charged as adults. Laura L. Finley

Africa and School Crime and Violence

Further Reading Hiber, M. (2008). Should juveniles be tried as adults? New York: Greenhaven. Hightower, E. (2008, November 21). Florida teen charged as adult in school shooting death. World Socialist website. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from http://www.wsws .org/articles/2008/nov2008/flor-n21.shtml Marks, A. (2007, March 22). States rethink trying juveniles as adults. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved April 18, 2010, from http://www.csmonitor.com/ 2007/0322/p03s03-usju.html PBS Frontline. (n.d.). Does treating kids like adults make a difference? Retrieved April 18, 2010, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/ stats/kidslikeadults.html Wright, T. (2010, April 16). Josie Lou’s attacker charged as an adult. NBC Miami. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/ Josie-Lous-Attacker-Charged-as-an-Adult-91058499.html

Africa and School Crime and Violence Existing data indicate that the rate of school violence and crime in Africa has increased in the last two decades, becoming one of the most challenging social problems in that region. School violence is a multifaceted construct that involves both criminal acts and aggression that inhibit development and learning as well as harm the school’s climate. Such violence may consist of anything ranging from corporal punishment to bullying, verbal abuse and harassment, and criminal behavior, including assault, gender-based violence, arson, and murder—all of which may occur in classrooms, hallways, school yards, or school bathrooms. In Africa, physical punishment occurs not only at home, but also at school, a place where children are supposed to be given an education. Most school children in Africa are too familiar with bruises and stinging from whips, canes, and slaps. While school violence is endemic continent-wide, much of the violence remains hidden, because victims are afraid to come forward for fear of repercussions or being stigmatized. In addition, the authoritarian nature of schooling in Africa allows violence to flourish, such as the high levels of sexual aggression demonstrated by boys and teachers’ propositioning of girls for sex, both of which are tolerated. Students, teachers, and parents continue to be concerned about school safety. In some countries (such as South Africa), rampant violence against students and school staff is pervasive and disruptive, and impedes the schools’ efforts to improve education. Notwithstanding these facts, it is important to remember that school violence is not solely an African dilemma, but rather is widespread throughout most parts of the world.

7

8

Africa and School Crime and Violence

Students at the Immaculate Conception Junior High School in Kpando, Ghana, join groups such as the Sara club that help to empower young women by reinforcing their focus on education and their goal to stay in school. (Henry Akorsu/USAID)

Corporal punishment is not a new phenomenon in Africa: it has been a method of imparting punishment in schools since the colonial period. Corporal punishment is a method of discipline in which an adult deliberately inflicts pain upon a child in response to his or her unacceptable behavior. According to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, it breaches a child’s fundamental right to be protected from violence and to receive an education. Despite all that is known about its negative effects, corporal punishment continues to be institutionally sanctioned in African schools. As Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported in 1999, the infliction of corporal punishment is often cruel, where teachers cane, slap, and whip students for poor academic performance or to maintain classroom discipline. Severe injuries such as broken bones, knocked-out teeth, and internal bleeding are common occurrences. Numerous reports have chronicled violations of corporal punishment regulations in Africa, such as the 1999 HRW investigation of corporal punishment in 20 schools in Kenya, which revealed only one school applied corporal punishment according to the regulations. In 2007, HRW reported on severe punishments that

Africa and School Crime and Violence

were meted out in Kenyan schools, such as having students stand in the hot sun or forcing them to uproot tree stumps. Shumba (2001) reported incidents of abuse by teachers in Zimbabwe, including sexual, physical and emotional abuse. According to Shumba, out of 246 reported cases of abuse by teachers in secondary schools between 1990 and 1997, 65.6% involved sexual intercourse with students, 1.9% rape or attempted rape, and the remainder other inappropriate teacher conduct. Other studies found similar results. In Botswana, the Secretary of Education (2007) revealed that 92% of students had been beaten by a teacher—behavior that was approved of by 67% of parents. In a Save the Children (2005) survey of 2,366 children ages 6–18 in Swaziland, 28% reported having been hit with a hand, 59% being beaten with an object, and 28% being humiliated. Most disturbing, Population Communication Africa (2004) found that more than 60% of children were physically abused in Africa, including being slapped in the face, hit with a cane or stick, kicked, punched, or physically bullied. Corporal punishment in South Africa has sometimes resulted in hospitalization or death. For example, in the province of KwaZulu-Natal, a female teacher knocked together the heads of two boys, resulting in the death of one of them. Also, in 2004, a 17-year-old boy died after being beaten by a school principal. One factor contributing to violence against girls is the lower status afforded to women in African societies. Likewise, violence in African schools has a genderbased dimension; thus schools become breeding grounds for damaging gender practices. Communication Africa (2002) noted that, other than in the home, physical abuse typically takes place at school and that the major perpetrators are teachers and other students. Sexual violence is defined as any sexual act or attempted sexual act using coercion, threats, or physical force. In schools in Africa, it may involve assault, sexual advances, harassment, and forced sex or rape, perpetrated by male students, teachers, or school personnel. Other studies documented cases of female students who left school or skipped classes because a teacher had sexually molested them. Of course, this kind of abuse happens elsewhere in the world too: female students in Papua New Guinea reported that they feared sexual assaults and violence in schools and felt threatened by male teachers. Rossetti’s 2001 survey of 560 students in Botswana found that 67% of students were sexually harassed by teachers, 20% of students asked for sex, and 42% of those who were asked for sex gave in. It is important to point out that violence against girls is not restricted to the classroom or the school yard; rather, it takes place in many locations associated with school, including bathrooms. Most sexual abuse of young children took place in bathrooms, and many children categorized bathrooms as dangerous zones. In her 2007 study, Ruto collected data from groups of 1,279 and 1,206 children, of which two-thirds of the respondents were girls. She discovered that 58 of every 100 children had been sexually harassed, with 29% of

9

10

Africa and School Crime and Violence

the boys and 24% of the girls having been forced into unwanted sex. The main perpetrators were peers, with the home featured as most unsafe place. Omale reported similar behavior in Kenya in 1999, including incidents of rape on the way home from school, as well as teachers having sex with (and impregnating) primary school children. She further cited the infamous St. Kizito incidents in Kenya in which boys went on a rampage through the girls’ dormitories, killing 19 girls and raping 71 others. Bunwaree’s 1999 study discovered high levels of verbal abuse in schools in Mauritius, while Leach and Machakanja found abuse was prevalent against female teachers in Zimbabwe in their 2000 study. Akiba et al. studied 37 countries in 2002, noting that violence in schools has more to do with in-school factors than with crime rates from the wider society. Some note, however, that violence is not analyzed within a gendered and sociocultural context, pointing out that the gender of the perpetrators of the crimes often remains unmentioned. Sexual harassment is common in schools in Africa. It can be verbal, taking the form of teasing, or it can be of a physical nature, such as unwanted touching or sexual contact. It can also be more overtly violent, as in cases where girls are sexually assaulted or raped. Leach and Machakanja’s 2000 study in Ghana, Zimbabwe, and Malawi revealed that violence against girls included sexual propositions by older male students and teachers, including the use of sexually explicit language that creates a hostile school environment. Other research reported a prevalence of child abuse in Zimbabwe and found 110 cases (72.4%) of sexual abuse, 38 cases (25%) of physical abuse, 3 cases (2.1%) of hidden curriculum abuse, and one case (0.7%) of emotional abuse during the same period. In refugee camps, such as those in Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia, girls were abused by teachers, including being subjected to the exchange of good grades for sex. The rise in crimes of a sexual nature has threatened the safety of girls in African schools; consequently, girls who attend upper primary and secondary schools are a small minority. In countries such as Chad, Malawi, and Mozambique, fewer than half of all girls who start school remain there until grade five. Bullying can take many forms, including physical violence, threats, name calling, persistent teasing, exclusion, tormenting, ridicule, humiliation, or abusive comments. Teacher–student bullying also exists in most schools and takes such forms as verbal abuse, taunts, and assaults. A questionnaire administered to 574 students in grades 8 and 11 at 72 schools in Cape Town and Durban, South Africa, noted that 36.3% of students were involved in bullying behavior, 8.2% were bullies, 19.3% were victims, and 8.7% had been both bully and victim. In Africa, the widespread failure of educational authorities to address school violence, or to even acknowledge that school violence exists—in particular, in contexts of weak policy compliance, shoddy reports from school principals, and entrenched gender roles—has allowed this problem to flourish unchecked and, therefore, to

Alcohol and School Crime and Violence

become institutionalized. Moreover, the existence of gender-based violence in schools is not fully recognized, so it is unlikely that African countries will have dealt with the issue. To fully address the problem of violence in schools, ministries of education must develop policies on school discipline, including clear codes of conduct for teachers that outline procedures for disciplinary measures, sanctions, and prosecution in cases of teacher misconduct. In addition, they must understand and scrutinize the wider cultural norms that shape behavior and attitudes. In doing so, educators will have fulfilled their most basic responsibilities of protecting human rights of the children, including enhancing their moral development. If left unchecked, school violence in Africa will have a negative impact on the education and emotional needs of the children and become an insurmountable barrier to attaining education. Despite these immense challenges, some countries have made efforts to tackle school violence as well as to prohibit corporal punishment. Njoki-Wa-Kinyatti Further Reading Harber, C. (2001). Schooling and violence in South Africa: Creating a safe school. Intercultural Education, 12(3), 261–271. Holan, L., Flisher, A., & Lombard, C. (2007). Bullying, violence, and risk behavior in South African students. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 161–171. Leach, F., Mandoga, P., & Machakanja, J. (2000). Preliminary investigation of the abuse of girls in Zimbabwean junior secondary schools. London: Department of International Development, Education Division. Matsoga, J. (2003). Crime and school violence in Botswana secondary school education: The case of Moeding senior secondary school. France: LAP Academic Publishing. Morrell, R. (1998). Gender and education: The place of masculinity in South African schools. South African Journal of Education, 18(4), 218–225. Msani, M. (2007, June). Discipline in a Kwazulu-Natal secondary school: The gendered experience of learners. Retrieved January 31, 2010, from http://146.230 .128.84:8080/jspui/bitstream/10413/40/1/Msani%20complete%20thesis.pdf Ruto, S. J. (2009). Sexual abuse of school age children: Evidence from Kenya. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 12(1), 177–192.

Alcohol and School Crime and Violence Alcohol is a depressant that affects the brain’s chemistry, causing the brain to release dopamine and serotonin. It is the drug most commonly used by people ages 12 to 20. It is also the drug most commonly associated with violence. Alcohol

11

12

Alcohol and School Crime and Violence

consumption increases the risk of being victimized and of becoming a perpetrator of criminal or violent activity. Additionally, heavy drinking can negatively affect brain development among adolescents, which means it poses a significant risk to the physical, psychological, and social well-being of both juveniles and adults. Even before a child is born, alcohol consumption can create a propensity toward violence. Prenatal alcohol exposure, which can result in fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects, is associated with a host of behavioral and social problems, including delinquent behavior. The effects of fetal alcohol syndrome are generally experienced throughout the duration of one’s life. Although drinking by persons younger than the age of 21 is illegal in the United States, people aged 12 to 20 years drink 11% of all alcohol consumed in this country. Irresponsible drinking can reduce self-control and the ability to process incoming information. As a consequence, drinkers may not be as adept at assessing risks as nondrinkers, which may make them more prone to engage in dangerous behavior or misread cues suggesting a situation is unsafe. The reduced physical control and inability to recognize warning signs in potentially dangerous situations can make some drinkers easy targets for perpetrators. Males are more likely than females to be both perpetrators and victims of alcohol-related youth violence. Data from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) show that adolescents who drank alcohol in the previous month were significantly more likely to have acted violently in the previous year. The data are even worse for heavy or binge drinkers. Heavy drinkers are most likely to report destroying property and threatening or physically attacking others. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines heavy drinking as consuming an average of more than two drinks per day. For women, heavy drinking is typically defined as consuming an average of more than one drink per day. Binge drinking is generally defined as having four to five drinks in a two-hour time period. According to NHSDA data, heavy drinkers were much more likely than binge or light drinkers to report destroying property and threatening or physically attacking others. Nondrinkers are the least likely to engage in these behaviors. Violence most often occurs in and around bars. In a community sample of 18- to 30-yearolds in the United States, almost 25% of men and 12% of women had experienced violence or aggression in or around a licensed bar during the previous year. However, alcohol-influenced violent incidents occurring in people’s homes or dorm rooms are likely under-reported. Some people use alcohol as a coping mechanism or as a way to self-medicate after experiencing trauma. Data show that approximately 70% of all victims of domestic violence have substance abuse issues, for instance. Alcohol consumption is associated with the carrying of weapons. Youths who used illegal drugs in the year prior to participating in the NHSDA survey were

Alcohol and School Crime and Violence

three times more likely to have carried a handgun than youth who did not use drugs. Binge drinking and heavy alcohol use were also associated with handgun possession, with youth being four and five times more likely, respectively, to have carried a handgun in the past year compared to their nondrinking peers. Data from countries outside the United States show essentially the same patterns. In Israel, 11- to 16-year-olds who reported both drinking five or more drinks per occasion and having ever been drunk were twice as likely to be perpetrators of bullying, five times as likely to be injured in a fight, and six times as likely to carry weapons. In England and Wales, 18 to 24-year-old males who reported feeling very drunk at least monthly were more than twice as likely to have been involved in a fight in the previous year, and females more than four times as likely, compared to regular but nonbinge drinkers. Many high school and college students consume alcohol prior to engaging in violent or criminal activity. This behavior is influenced by individual and societal beliefs about the effects of alcohol, which suggest it can increase one’s confidence and one’s aggression. Alcohol consumption is also more likely in social situations that are related to schools and universities, such as dances, parties, and sporting events. When drinking occurs in crowded and poorly managed venues, the risk of violence increases. Given that violent crime is costly and is clearly associated with alcohol consumption, politicians, educators, and the general public have a vested interest in reducing under-aged or inappropriate drinking. In the United States, the costs of violent crime related to harmful alcohol use among youth were estimated at $29 billion in 1996. Research has suggested that increasing alcohol prices through higher taxation might reduce the frequency of drinking and, consequently, the chance of heavy alcohol consumption among young people. In the United States, it has been estimated that a mere 10% increase in beer prices would reduce the number of college students involved in violence by 4%. Additionally, research in the United States has found some evidence that programs that attempt to correct misperceptions about peers’ drinking habits are effective. Called social norms campaigns, these programs address the fact that young people typically over-estimate how many of their peers are drinking and how frequently they do it. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Butler Center for Research. (2008). Youth violence and alcohol/drug abuse. Retrieved April 18, 2010, from www.hazelden.org/web/public/document/ bcrup_0102.pdf Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010, April 19). Alcohol and public health. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/index.htm

13

14

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

The Cool Spot: The Young Teen’s Place for Info on Alcohol and Resisting Peer Pressure. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.thecoolspot.gov/ World Health Organization. (n.d.). Youth violence and alcohol. Retrieved April 18, 2010, from http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/ world_report/factsheets/fs_youth.pdf

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) According to its website, “The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.” The nonprofit, nonpartisan ACLU works on numerous civil, political, and human rights issues, including capital punishment, drug law reform, free speech, HIV/AIDS, prisoners’ rights, racial justice, reproductive freedom, voting rights, lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender (LGBT) rights, immigrants’ rights, women’s rights, and privacy rights. The organization has more than 500,000 members and supporters, with staffed offices in all 50 states as well as Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. The ACLU has participated in more U.S. Supreme Court cases than any other private organization, and claims to win more than it loses. In regard to school crime and violence, the ACLU has often been a leader in protesting unconstitutional practices that are harmful to students. Its members have conducted a thorough examination of corporal punishment and published a report on why it should be prohibited (http://www.aclu.org/human-rights/corporalpunishment-children). The ACLU often backs students in cases where they believe school authorities overstep their bounds or unfairly deny students the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. For instance, the ACLU became involved when two Indiana high school girls were punished for posting sexually suggestive pictures of themselves on MySpace, an act that had nothing to do with the school. They assisted the plaintiff in contesting unconstitutional school-based strip searches in the case of Savannah Redding, a 15-year-old who was strip-searched based on allegations that she had ibuprofen she had not checked in at the school office. The ACLU also advocates for safe school environments for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth. Zero-tolerance laws, which require students be suspended or expelled for certain violations (typically having weapons or drugs on campus, among other things), have been challenged by a number of groups, but the ACLU has been one of the most active and has long noted these laws’ disproportionate impact on racial and ethnic minorities. At the college level, the ACLU has been active in addressing hate crimes on campus while maintaining support for freedom of speech and academic freedom. It helped address homophobia, for instance, when its members investigated and

Amnesty International

recommended the reprimand of a Fresno State College health sciences instructor who insulted gays and lesbians and used the Bible in class as justification for those acts. Further, the ACLU has defended students’ right to nonviolently protest campus policies. Persons seeking information about the ACLU’s work, needing assistance, or wishing to get involved can find information about local affiliates on the organization’s website (www.aclu.org). Laura L. Finley Further Reading ACLU. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/ Schmidt, P. (2010, April 2). Fresno City College moves to reprimand instructor who drew ACLU complaint. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved April 16, 2010, from http://jobs.chronicle.com/article/Fresno-City-College -Moves-to/64967/

Amnesty International Founded in 1961, Amnesty International (AI) is a global human rights watchdog and advocacy group with more than 2.8 million members spread across 150 countries. Initially devoted to lobbying to free prisoners of conscience, AI has evolved to focus on numerous human rights abuses. Its current work involves campaigns focusing on the following issues: • • • • • • •

Stopping violence against women Defending the rights and dignity of those trapped in poverty Abolishing the death penalty Opposing torture and combating terror with justice Freeing prisoners of conscience Protecting the rights of refugees and migrants Regulating the global arms trade

AI has worked to address human rights abuses in and around schools across the globe. For instance, it has called attention to sexual abuse of girls in school, the inability of children to safely arrive at school due to violence in the streets, and the school-to-prison pipeline. AI members have advocated for better treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth, who often endure tremendous verbal and physical harassment in schools. Additionally, AI has called attention to the damage caused by corporal punishment in schools.

15

16

Anger Management

It notes that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) guarantees young people the right to education. Notably, the United States has not ratified the CRC. Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) works to ensure these and other human rights domestically. AIUSA also provides resources to local and student chapters that wish to advance human rights in their communities. In an effort to reach young people, AIUSA has implemented an extensive Music for Human Rights campaign. Student groups are encouraged to start AI chapters in their schools. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Amnesty International: www.amnesty.org Amnesty International USA: www.amnestyusa.org Amnesty International USA’s Music for Human Rights Campaign: http:// www.musicforhumanrights.org/

Anger Management Anger is one of the primary risk factors for violent activity, both inside and outside of schools. Students who do not know how to manage their anger are at risk for various forms of aggression, ranging from verbal outbursts to physical violence. Anger management aims to give participants the tools they need to understand their anger and identify anger triggers. It also provides participants with management strategies that can help them reduce the chance that their anger will escalate into violence. These approaches may be taught in a variety of settings—for instance, in a class or as part of a counseling session. Courts often mandate anger management training as part of a criminal sentence or a diversion program. Most colleges and universities offer some type of anger management course, either on a voluntary basis through a counseling or student services center or as a for-credit course. Students who get in trouble on campus may be required to complete an anger management course either on campus or through a local provider. In these programs participants are taught to take new perspectives, or to see things through the eyes of another. They are given instruction on identifying how they feel when they are angry, and then are taught specific techniques for problem solving. Many anger management programs include specific relation techniques as well. The instruction in such courses is done through lectures, discussion, videos, and role playing. Studies have found some significant benefits of anger management. One study of anger management training for aggressive elementary school boys found that three years after completion of the program, attendees had increased self-esteem

Anonymous Tip Lines

and were less likely to be involved in drugs and alcohol. There was no change in their delinquent behavior, however. Another study of 7- to 13-year-olds who received anger management training in a psychiatric ward found that the youth had significantly increased problem-solving skills one year later. A critical factor is the length of the program. Results are generally not significant for programs that are 6 lessons or shorter. Programs that are 12 sessions or longer, by comparison, have been shown to reduce aggressiveness. Long-term outcomes are increased when “booster sessions” are held one year later or at regular intervals. Although courts often require domestic or dating violence offenders to complete anger management programs, research has not found that this approach is an effective way to address this specific problem. The failure of such courtmandated training is likely due to the fact that abuse is about offenders seeking to obtain and maintain power and control over victims, not about their inability to control their anger. A number of anger management resources are available to assist educators in implementing a program. The Partnership Against Violence Network (PAVNET; www.pavnet.org) serves as a clearinghouse for information about anger management and other related topics. George Washington University’s Hamilton Fish Institute is another good source of information. The PBS series In the Mix has included an episode devoted to anger management. Lesson plans for educators at grade levels 9–12 are available at http://www.pbs.org/inthemix/educators/ lessons/schoolviol3/index.html. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Hamilton Fish Institute. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.hamfish.org/ Mayo Clinic. (2009, June 25). Anger management tips: 10 ways to tame your temper. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/anger -management/MH00102 Safe and Responsive Schools Project. (2000). Anger management. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/AngerManagement.pdf

Anonymous Tip Lines In 2000, the U.S. Secret Services used its threat assessment model to examine the cases of 41 people who had committed attacks at schools over the previous 26 years. Although they found no specific “profile” of a school shooter, they did find some commonalities among the cases. In particular, most shooters did not just “snap” and begin impulsively shooting. Rather, they had planned their attacks, at least to some degree. More than three-fourths of shooters analyzed held some type of

17

18

Anonymous Tip Lines

Despite the “anti-snitch” culture common among teens, police departments across the nation set up anonymous tip lines. In many cases, tippers can even text the information they wish to share with the police and remain anonymous to the public. (iStockPhoto)

grievance related to the school or to students, and in almost all of the cases the individual had told someone about his or her complaint. The confidant was typically a peer—either a friend, a classmate, or a sibling. In only two cases were adults told. Given that at least one other person was likely aware that something was going to happen in almost all cases of serious violence on school or campus grounds, many assert that anonymous tip lines are among the most important prevention tools for this type of violence. Many tip lines were established after the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, for example. Such a vehicle is an easy way for administrators to learn about possible violent activity. At many schools, posters are placed around the building alerting students to what might be deemed suspicious behavior and providing them with a phone number they can call if they see or hear something worrisome. Some states have established 24-hour tip lines that are operated by police. For instance, the Michigan School Violence hotline is a place where students can report specific threats of imminent harm. Students are told that they will remain anonymous, and are taught to differentiate between when it is appropriate to call the tip line and when more immediate police intervention is needed.

Arts-Based Programs

One difficulty is in overcoming the powerful “anti-snitch” culture that often prevails among adolescents. For many youth, it is simply unacceptable to tell adults anything about a peer. Officials hope that the promise of anonymity can assure students that no one will ever know who reported the tip. Although it is difficult to determine precisely how effective they are, news reports occasionally describe situations that were averted due to tipsters. For instance, a Columbine-like attack was thwarted in December 2009 in Bridgewater, New Jersey, when a student informed school officials about suspicious behavior. In a number of locations, people are being encouraged to message text their tips to law enforcement or appropriate officials. Baltimore inaugurated its textmessage tip line in June 2008. Authorities in Douglas County, Colorado, thwarted a school attack after an anonymous text led them to a student’s “kill list.” At colleges, campus police are increasingly utilizing tips from text messages to keep order in dorms and at campus events. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Associated Press. (2008, July 30). UR BUSTED: Catching bad guys by txt msgs. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from http://exhibitanewsbaltimore.com/blog/2008/ 07/30/ur-busted-catching-bad-guys- by-txt-msgs/ Lavoie, D. (2009, November 28). Text-a-Tip programs help police get info from anonymous tipsters in anti-snitching culture. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from http://blog.taragana.com/politics/2009/11/28/text-a-tip-programs-help-police-get -info-from-anonymous-tipsters-in-anti-snitching-culture-2969/ School Violence Hotline. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/ safeschools/0,1607,7-181—68589—,00.html Teppo, G. (2007, April 19). Experts ponder patterns in school shootings. USA Today. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/ 2007-04-18-school-shooters_N.htm

Arts-Based Programs Involvement in the arts can be tremendously beneficial to both victims and perpetrators of violence. Art therapy or similar programs can help heal those who have been harmed by crime or violence, and arts-based programs can serve a preventive role as well. Children and youth exposed to various forms of crime, violence, and trauma often find it difficult to articulate their feelings. Arts-based therapy can help them share their emotions and begin healing. Participants may engage in drawing, painting, sculpture, music, drama, and many other art forms. Arts-based therapy is

19

20

Arts-Based Programs

Collaborative art activity can play an important role in preventing youth violence. (Monkey Business Images/Dreamstime.com)

often used with children who have been exposed to domestic violence in the home, for example. It may occur at the school, where a trained art therapist might hold a session in which she or he examines the child’s existing artwork. For adolescents, this technique is commonly used in the treatment of eating disorders. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Psychologist journal have published reports on “best practices” for youth violence prevention (YVP) Programs. Critical components of school-based YVP programs identified in the reports include interactive student participation; fostering of relationships between students, staff, and families; rewards for positive behaviors; and total school involvement. Prevention programs designed specifically for elementary school children should also include largely group activities, active participation in story-based or narrative learning, opportunities to practice negotiation skills with peers and authority figures, and humor and playfulness. Arts-based YVP programs fulfill a number of these criteria. Prosocial outcomes of arts-based YVP include increased social well-being, improved motivation and learning, enhanced individual and community development, and reduction in aggression, violence, and crime. The programs that are most successful at reducing crime and violence are generally flexible in their program structure, provide

Arts-Based Programs

mentorship, offer opportunities for ongoing program involvement, and share links to other community organizations. Many examples of arts-based YVP can be cited. For example, Urban Improv (UI) is a school-based program that has operated in the Boston Public Schools for 14 years. UI uses structured theater improvisation to assist youth with making difficult decisions, controlling their impulses, and resolving nonviolently. An evaluation of UI found increased prosocial behaviors among its participants. Specifically, UI helped prevent new aggression, and decreased hyperactivity among participants. Branch Out is an arts-based program created by Molly Foote that focuses on developing interpersonal empathy and open communications among participants. It has been used primarily in the U.S. Northwest and can be integrated into whole-class curricula as well as large- and small-group programs. Creative activities help students learn personal empowerment, social skills, career awareness, diversity appreciation, and community building. Counselors facilitate discussions during and after the activities and can add role playing or other creative activity to enhance students’ understanding. Another example is Elijah’s Kite, a children’s opera that addresses bullying. One evaluation of 104 fourth- and fifth-grade students showed significant increases in knowledge about bullying and reductions in self-reported victimization among those who viewed the opera. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Haner, D., Pepler, D., Cummings, J., & Rubin-Vaughn, A. (2010, March 1). The role of arts-based curricula in bullying prevention: Elijah’s Kite—A children’s opera. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25(1), 55–69. Hayes, S., & Foote, M. (2002). Culturally responsive approaches to school violence prevention. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture. Retrieved April 17, 2010, from http://orpc.iaccp.org/index.php?option=com_content& view=article&id=104%3Ahayesfoote&catid=35%3Achapter&Itemid=15 Kisiel, C., Blaustein, M., Spinazzola, J., Schmidt, C., Zucker, M., & van der Kolk, B. (2006). Evaluation of a theater-based violence prevention program for elementary school youth. Journal of School Violence, 5(2), 19–36. McArthur, D., & Law, S. A. (1996). The arts and prosocial impact study: A review of current programs and literature. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Thornton, T. N., Craft, C. A., Dahlberg, L. L., Lynch, B. S., & Baer, K. (2002). Best practices of youth violence prevention: A sourcebook for community action. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

21

22

Asia and School Crime and Violence

Asia and School Crime and Violence Asia is the world’s largest continent, home to 4 billion people residing in 47 different countries. These countries maintain a wide variety of school systems and experience vastly different rates of overall crime in society, making it difficult to generalize about school crime and violence across the continent as a whole. Some of the national school systems in Asia—such as those in South Korea and Japan—are considered to be among the most academically rigorous in the world, while others are held back by poverty and other socioeconomic and political problems. School crime and violence rates vary throughout Asia. For some countries, the data available about these issues are very limited. The next paragraphs report the findings of just a few of the relevant studies that have been conducted in this area. In 1994, the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS), which aimed to compare rates of student attainment in science and math across many different countries, also surveyed students (in seventh and eighth grades) and teachers about school violence. An analysis of these data reveals that 60% of students in the Philippines said that they had been victims of school violence in the month prior to taking the survey. Slightly more than 30% of students in South Korea, more than 20% of students in Hong Kong and Thailand, and less than 10% of students in Singapore reported such victimization. To put these figures into perspective, more than 25% of students in the United States reported they had been victims of school violence in the previous month. A different comparative study, which examined representative data from eighth graders, teachers, and principals in U.S. and South Korean schools, found that some measures of school violence were lower in South Korea than in the United States. Although it is important to keep in mind that all cross-national comparative studies have limitations, the findings of both this study and the TIMSS illustrate that, although some Asian countries may have lower rates of school crime or violence than the United States, school crime and violence are still important issues throughout much of the Asian continent. National statistics seem to support this point. In Japan, although overall crime rates in society have traditionally been very low, the education ministry reported that, in fiscal year 2008, the number of violent acts committed in junior high schools dramatically increased; on the positive side, the number of bullying cases reported at all schooling levels decreased. In the Philippines, a report issued in 2009 by the human rights organization Plan Philippines (affiliated with the global nongovernmental organization Plan International) found that more than 40% of the public school students who were surveyed said that they had been threatened with physical violence at school. (Plan International has also produced publications about school violence in India, Thailand, and numerous other countries around the

Asia and School Crime and Violence

world. Information about how to obtain these resources is available in the Further Reading section at the end of this article.) In some Asian nations, concern about school violence has increased in recent years in response to high-profile crimes. For example, although levels of violence in schools are generally reported to be low in India, a number of recent incidents— including two fatal shootings between December 2007 and January 2008— received international media attention and increased Indian awareness of school violence issues. Similarly, several high-profile cases of school violence have raised concerns among Japanese citizens. One particularly infamous case in Japan occurred in 2001, when a mentally ill man stabbed 8 children to death at an elementary school. An eerily similar crime took place in China in 2004, when a mentally ill janitor stabbed 14 students at a kindergarten in Beijing, resulting in one death; this crime and several other incidents of violence in Chinese schools also received some international media attention. What explains cross-national similarities and differences in rates of school violence? Why do some Asian countries seem to have higher rates of school crime and violence than others, and why do some Asian countries appear to have lower rates of school violence than the United States? Interestingly, the analysis of the 1994 TIMSS data described earlier found that rates of school violence were not related to the overall rates of crime in the countries that took part in the survey. Instead, according to this analysis, rates of school violence were associated with some socioeconomic factors but not others. Other observers have theorized that different types of instructional methods and school environments could explain contrasting rates of violence. In this vein, one study found that South Korean schools that put students on academic tracking systems had higher rates of school violence than South Korean schools that did not do so. Finally, some commentators have argued that different rates of school violence could be due to economic modernization. As Asian countries become more industrialized, such commentators claim, young people disassociate themselves from traditional values and immerse themselves in more violent movies and video games; according to this theory, such behavior may raise rates of violence. More cross-national comparative research is needed in the area of school violence to determine whether this and other explanations are correct. What are Asian countries doing to reduce or prevent school crime and violence? In recent years, awareness of these issues has increased significantly in many countries in Asia, and a number of countries have developed national strategies for monitoring and combating violence. For example, in 2007, China’s Ministry of Education declared that it would launch a safety campaign on campuses. In 2005, South Korea’s Education Ministry initiated a nationwide plan to combat school violence; in 2010, a second five-year plan was announced, which will include increased use of closed-circuit television (CCTV) to monitor safety in both primary and

23

24

Athletes and Crime and Violence, College

secondary schools. In 2008, the global human rights organization Plan International launched a campaign to reduce school violence in many countries around the world, including nations in Asia. The immensity and diversity of Asia makes it impossible to discuss school violence—and measures taken to prevent school violence—in every country in the continent. However, the sources listed in the Further Reading section offer a jumping-off point for readers interested in exploring school crime and violence in Asia in greater depth. Tiffany Bergin Further Reading Akiba, M., & Han, S. (2007). Academic differentiation, school achievement and school violence in the USA and South Korea. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 37(2), 201–219. Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., Baker, D. P., & Goesling, B. (2002). Student victimization: National and school system effects on school violence in 37 nations. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 829–853. Balasegaram, M. (2001, June 8). Violent crime stalks Japan’s youth. BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1377781.stm Elementary school text service to go nationwide. (2010, January 14). The Korea Herald. Retrieved from http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/data/ html_dir/2010/01/14/201001140013.asp Forney, M. (2004, November 29). China’s school killings. Time. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,832294,00.html Plan International. (2009). Learn without fear: The global campaign to end violence in schools. Retrieved from http://plan-international.org/learnwithoutfear/ resources/publications (Plan International’s reports about school violence in the Philippines, India, Thailand, and many other countries—which were referenced in this article—can be accessed from this page.) School violence set record last year. (2009, December 1). The Japan Times. Retrieved from http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20091201b5.html Wax, E. (2008, February 13). India shaken by school violence. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/ 02/12/AR2008021202694.html

Athletes and Crime and Violence, College Historically, a scholar’s word was considered better than that of a “townsman.” Along with scholarly status comes a protective cloak or veil that often affords college intellectuals—the future leaders and professionals of America—impunity

Athletes and Crime and Violence, College

from the law and leniency from public officials. In the past, status and respect derived solely from monetary wealth aided law breakers in escaping criminal sanctions for their offenses. Today, a small minority of college students— athletes—are also afforded leniency when they commit criminal violations because of the “star” status derived from being an athlete. This essay provides a historical overview of universities and campus crime, discusses the relevance of the status of athletes, identifies the prevalence of campus violence perpetrated by student-athletes, and explains why some athletes commit crime. Violence on college campus is not a new phenomenon. Likewise, the sense of “us versus them” and the lack of response by the criminal justice system when scholars commit criminal offenses are well entrenched in our society. The problem with the criminal justice system not intruding when campus crimes occur dates back to the first university institutions in Europe. Although crime was present in these institutions of higher learning, they remained separated from the rest of society in several ways. In fact, such campuses were originally referred to as sanctuaries. This idea of a campus as a sanctuary had its roots in the violence that was related to the “town versus gown” relationship. Medieval universities, which were known as studia generalia, were institutions characterized by regional significance that drew pupils from beyond their own region. These universities were often at the center of the balance of power between the church and the state. The power of education and its relation to economic and political power were certainly recognized. Such universities found their origin in the guilds of professors and students who collaborated to protect their rights from those church authorities within their institutions who tried to control their studies and affairs. In fact, the word university stems from the Latin universitas, which means “consolidation.” Prior to the close of the 12th century, the masters in several universities created guilds of medicine, law, theology, and liberal arts because they were vexed at the control exerted by the chancellors who had been given authority over them. The masters wanted control over their own affairs, and they also wanted to issue teaching licenses. They turned to anyone who would help them in their pursuit of autonomy. During this century, townspeople were often angry at the sense of arrogance students demonstrated because of their privileged status. From this tension, violence ensued. The violence reached its peak at Oxford University on Saint Scholastica’s Day in 1354. For three days, the townspeople and the students battled. The university was destroyed and several people died, including two chaplains. In response to such violent eruptions, the monarchs granted the universities special legal rights and autonomy—including the right of students and faculty to be tried in university courts for any alleged offenses. Thus the tradition of special treatment for college students in courts of law and the criminal justice system dates back to at least the 13th century in Paris and the 14th century at Oxford.

25

26

Athletes and Crime and Violence, College

Until recent decades, legal requirements imposed on colleges and universities were virtually absent. Consequently, many universities saw themselves as removed from, and perhaps above, the world of law and lawyers. The tradition of non-intervention by the judicial system and the government can still be seen in the response to campus crime. Student behavior that would have labeled a criminal offense if it happened outside of the university is instead handled from within the walls of academia, generally by the dean of students, who may sanction quick fixes as he or she sees fit. This approach eliminates the criminal stigma for perpetrators, but the outcome may not be well received by victims. Moreover, offenders may not be deterred from reoffending if their behavior is treated so lightly. Today, status protects a lot of people. On college campuses, the “star” status protects many student-athletes from punitive sanctions when they break the law. Rather than student rebellion and violent demonstrations, which were the more common forms of violence throughout most of academic history, sexual violence is the main issue on college campuses today. In 2006, Duke University’s lacrosse team came to the media’s attention after a woman leveled charges of kidnapping and rape at two members of the team. Prior to the scandal, news reports revealed, 15 of the players had court records, generally involving charges of drunken and disorderly conduct. Although all charges in the Duke case were eventually dropped, sexual assault by athletes remains all too common. One study concluded that while athletes constitute 3.3% of the college population, they perpetrate 19% of all sexual assaults on campus. A study by Dr. Mary P. Koss concluded that male athletes were involved in roughly one-third of all sexual assaults committed on college campuses. This number has held stead, according to the National Coalition Against Violent Athletes. According to a 2005 study, athletes account for less than 2% of the total college student population—but that 2% represents 23% of all sexual assault assailants and perpetrates 14% of the attempted sexual assaults on campuses. The Benedict-Crosset study was one of the largest and most important on this same topic. It addressed sexual assault at 30 NCAA Division 1 universities in the 1990s. The authors concluded that male student-athletes are responsible for a higher proportion of sexual assaults on Division 1 campuses compared to the rest of the male population. In the early 2000s, many allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior and rape were made against rugby players at San Diego State; against football players at Penn State, the Naval Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the University of Oklahoma, and the University of Colorado; and against basketball players at the University of South Dakota. According to the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention, gang rapes committed on campuses are most often perpetrated by men who belong to intensive male peer

Athletes and Crime and Violence, College

groups who demonstrate rape-supportive behavior and attitudes. One analysis of alleged gang rapes concluded that in 22 of 24 documented cases, the perpetrators were members of either an athletic team or a fraternity. Researchers contend that when such crimes are committed by athletes, society fails to label the act a crime and does not impose harsh sanctions. In fact, many boosters come to the defense of the team they so love. They may deny that a gang rape occurred, instead calling it group sex. Athletes perpetrate other forms of crime or violence as well. In February 2010, after the starting quarterback at Oregon, Jeremiah Masoli, was accused of stealing laptops, running back LaMichael James was arrested for domestic violence. The athlete faced misdemeanor charges of strangulation, menacing, and assault. James was also arrested in 2008 for disorderly conduct and third-degree battery, but those charges were dismissed. Leniency afforded by status is clearly evident in this case. The attitude that they are above the law may help explain what prompts athletes to offend. These attitudes may arise because of the special treatment they have been given, often beginning in high school. Additionally, the message sent out to young men in general about being tough, assertive, and aggressive can be detrimental and translate into violence. The “jock culture” and the traditional macho culture in American society have several similarities regarding their underlying values: a sense of entitlement and impunity, bullying, dominance, narcissism, aggression, winning, and being a sexual athlete. These values often lead to violence, rape-supportive attitudes, the devaluation of women, and an us versus them: attitude. From this perspective, anyone who is not a star athlete is flawed and separate from the “heroes.” Sometimes college coaches seem to condone their athletes’ violent behavior. For example, the former basketball coach at the University of Maryland, Lefty Driesell, condoned such violence when he called a woman and asked her to drop the rape charges she had brought against one of his athletes. Statements such as the one made by coach Bobby Knight in a 1988 interview—“I think if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it”—also send a terrible message to young men in America. Critics contend that athletes are over-represented as perpetrators not because they actually commit more offenses, but because it is easy to accuse them. They are often very recognizable in their communities. Some note that while athletes are more likely to be accused of sexual offenses, they are not necessarily more likely to be convicted of these crimes. That could mean there is no truth to the charge. Some blame the “groupie” culture that often surrounds high-profile athletes for the frequent charges made against these individuals, asserting that women may throw themselves at these men and then file complaints so as to gain fame or money from out-of-court settlements. Rebecca Ajo

27

28

Athletes and Crime and Violence, High School

Further Reading Benedict, J. (1998). Athletes and acquaintance rape. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Benedict, J. (1999). Public heroes, private felons: Athletes and crimes against women. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Finley, L., & Finley, P. (2006). The sport industry’s war on athletes. Westport, CT: Praeger. National Coalition Against Violent Athletes. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.ncava .org Tarper, J., & Taylor, A. (2006, April 18). Is jock culture a training ground for crime? ABC News. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from http://abcnews.go.com/ WNT/story?id=1857059&page=1

Athletes and Crime and Violence, High School Over the years, high school sports have traditionally been seen as a positive factor in students’ lives, giving them something to do, keeping them away from delinquency and deviance, teaching them teamwork, instilling in them team spirit and school pride, and providing many with college scholarships. But what of the darker side of sports? What of the associated violence, which may take many forms, and can include many actors, including the players, the cheerleaders, the coaches, the parents, and the fans? A high school student receives a serious head injury during a football game. Another athlete goes back on the field with a partially healed broken bone and loaded with painkillers. A student suffers a ruptured spleen as a result of an athletic team hazing. Two parents get into fisticuffs at a youth hockey game, and one of them ends up dead. What do we mean by violence and high school athletics? In fact, we mean all of the above, and more. Some sports, by their very nature, are violent; a certain amount of aggression is allowed, even encouraged. Certain coaching styles may encourage higher levels of aggression. Some high school athletes are rewarded by coaches when they hurt other players, and they may be rewarded again when they receive college scholarships or professional offers to play. Violence on the court or field or rink may be defined as aggressive, dangerous, or excessive unwarranted behaviors that go beyond the bounds of safety and good sportsmanship. Sometimes this violence is intensified because of long-standing team rivalries, rivalries between individual teammates, the desire to win, and the urging of coaches, fans, and parents. One study found that more than 6% of high school sports injuries were caused by illegal actions on the field, particularly in girls’ basketball and both boys’ and girls’ soccer. When sports violence gets out of hand and goes beyond the realm of what is expected, there are restrictions and penalties to punish those who carry it too far.

Athletes and Crime and Violence, High School

Students participating in high school sports suffer millions of injuries each year. Two important factors link these injuries to the concept of violence. First, many of these injuries occur in sports that we consider to be violent by nature—football, hockey, rugby, wrestling, and boxing, for example. Second, recurrent injuries are deemed to be more harmful, yet the reality is that many students are encouraged to play before their injuries are completely healed and while loaded up on painkillers to get them through the game. These are unique forms of violence, but violence nonetheless. Recurrent injuries typically involve the head, the ankle, the shoulder, and the knee, and include injuries such as concussions, sprains, strains, and tears. Some injuries may have a permanent effect on the student’s lifelong health, just as surely as if they had been brutally mugged on the street. While a small number of studies differentiate between genders, the majority of research on sports violence has focused on males. Recent research indicates that there is a correlation between males’ participation in high school sports and their propensity to engage in fighting, drinking and binge drinking (also correlated with violence), and violence in social settings other than sports. Other studies have found no relationship between sports participation and violent delinquency for either boys or girls; in fact, some researchers have reported that sports can keep young people occupied between the peak hours of juvenile delinquency, from 3:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.—that is, after students get out of school, but before their parents arrive home from work. These findings are not necessarily contradictory; one set of studies finds that students who are involved in sports are more likely to get into physical fights than those who are engaged in other activities; another set of studies finds that athletes are less likely to engage in fighting than students who are not involved in any organized activities whatsoever. Some studies have broken down the propensity to fight by the type of sports activity, and found that football players and wrestlers (and even their non-athletic friends) are much more likely to engage in fighting than those playing tennis, basketball, or baseball. Rates of violent and aggressive behaviors among sports participants are similar across rural, suburban, and urban settings. Some researchers have proposed a direct link between the jocks in the school and the proliferation of school shootings. For example, at Columbine High School, many felt there was a “cult of the athlete,” meaning that the coaches and jocks ran the school, not just on the field, but in the halls and any other place where jocks were to be found. It was alleged that student-athletes harassed, humiliated, intimidated, and used violence against the outcasts, such as shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. In fact, there is a strong pattern of school shooters having been bullied mercilessly (albeit not exclusively by athletes) before they acted. Another type of violence occurring in high school athletics is hazing. Although there has been widespread publicity about and public outcry against this practice, hazing continues to occur in the schools, and it is very often associated with high

29

30

Athletes and Crime and Violence, High School

school sports teams. Some people believe that hazing today is much more vicious than it was in years past. As a result of hazing, a number of young people have been sexually assaulted, slapped, slugged in the stomach, beaten with hockey sticks or sand-filled bats, dropped on their heads or faces, and piled upon by multiple team members. Youngsters have suffered broken arms, concussions, lacerated/ ruptured spleens, broken noses, head injuries, and dental injuries as a result of being hazed. Making the problem even worse is the fact that many times coaches are aware of hazing, but do not intervene to stop it. Some forms of hazing have been comparable to adult criminal activities; consequently, some coaches and players have been charged with criminal offenses, and school authorities have been charged with not reporting instances of child sexual abuse. Dating violence and sexual assault are among the most prevalent forms of violent crime, in general and specific to athletes. A number of studies have found a correlation between participation in aggressive high school sports and the attitudes of the (male) players toward women. These males have been found to hold more sexist attitudes toward women, and to demonstrate more hostility toward women; they are more likely to use coercion in dating relationships, and are more likely to buy into the rape myths. (Typical rape myths include “no” really means “yes,” she was asking for it, and women enjoy being raped.) According to some scholars, success on the field, success with women, and violence are all tools that can raise one’s status in the process of male bonding. Of course, although there appears to be a relationship between sports participation and the acceptability of violence in dating, not all athletes are violent in their personal relationships. One scholar, in looking at the relationship between dating violence and sports participation, found that the significant factors were not simply athletic participation or competitiveness, but the need to win or hypercompetitiveness (a “must win” attitude, or the “need to win at any cost”). Sometimes sporting events, particularly evening events, attract unruly crowds, and sometimes students end up dead, as in the case of a California honor student who was shot to death after a high school football game. From Mississippi to Nebraska to Alabama, from football to basketball games (particularly between schools engaged in fierce rivalries), we are seeing everything from after-game brawls to after-game gunshot wounds. Sometimes violence can be attributed to students, at other times to the unruly out-of-school crowds attracted by the game. Violence does not have to involve the players themselves. It may involve the parents, the coaches, the referees, and the fans. The violence of the parents even has its own name: youth sports rage. In some cases, parental rage has resulted in the death of a coach or another parent, such as the case in Massachusetts where two hockey dads got into a deadly fight—in a bizarre twist, they brawled over the use of violence in the children’s hockey game. Youth sports rage has become such a problem that some states, such as New Jersey, are creating or upgrading

Athletes and Crime and Violence, High School

laws to deal more harshly with parents who become violent in the presence of children at sporting events. While some believe this type of behavior is on the increase, this perception is difficult to confirm; it may be that the media hype associated with the most sensational cases is driving this belief. One theory that helps to explain violence off the courts is the cultural spillover theory. Simply stated, it suggests that violence by players off the field is the result of society legitimizing violence when it leads to certain socially approved goals or outcomes (such as winning a sporting event)—a modern twist on the old adage, “The end justifies the means.” Research indicates that for older players on highly competitive teams, there is indeed a correlation between their sports violence and their violent behavior or their attitude toward violence in certain other settings. Older select league hockey players are more likely to let hockey violence spill over into violence in other sports. By comparison, younger house-league boys are more likely to be involved in domestic violence (although researchers are not certain as to why this is so). The modeling theory suggests that young children tend to model their attitudes and behaviors on what they see. It is fair to say that young children emulate the behavior of their parents and other close relatives, and that they emulate other role models as well. Professional athletes tend to become role models for young children. The behavior of many professional athletes, both on and off the field, is deplorable, ranging from sexual violence against women, to sponsoring of dog fights, to bar-room brawls, to one former athlete’s murder of his wife and her friend. The behavior of the fans, including the child’s own relatives, in front of the television or in the stands may also have a deleterious effect on the young child. Children see that in athletics violence is greatly admired and valued, particularly when it leads to a victory. Also, in many cases, the child’s games have become so important to the parent, and the parent has such high expectations for performance and the winning of the game, that many children are probably playing much more aggressively than they would if their main objective was to hang out with their friends and have fun. Children may also admire their coaches and look to them as role models, while many coaches, intent on winning, push children into behaviors that inappropriate for their age and incompatible with our societal values. Other perspectives that help to explain the elevated levels of violence among some athletes include the theory that some young athletes, who because of their “jock identity” tend to belong to the “in-crowd,” are greatly admired, believe they are above the law, and are more likely to engage in risk-taking behavior to demonstrate their masculinity. Jock identity is more highly correlated with violence than mere athletic participation. Among the studies that looked at gender, the correlation was higher for males than for females. Another theory is simply that contact sports create positive reactions to violence and/or aggression.

31

32

Athletes and Crime and Violence, High School

A number of groups have emerged that focus on reducing violence involving and surrounding athletics. Athletes Helping Athletes trains high school athletes in motivational speaking related to violence prevention, among other things. The National Coalition Against Violent Athletes (NCAVA) and Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP) are two groups that work with athletes and with the public to foster violence prevention through education and outreach programs. MVP encourages young men to become “empowered bystanders” who confront abusers and support victims. Several other possible solutions have been proposed by a variety of researchers and organizations. Good sportsmanship should be stressed for all players, but especially for youths. Parents, coaches, and children should sign a contract agreeing to maintain civil and non-injurious behaviors on the field and in the stands. Players should not be encouraged to engage in activities designed to “take the other team (or player) out.” Fair play and fun should be encouraged. Tougher penalties (such as not being allowed to play for a certain amount of time) could be meted out for on-court misbehavior and violence. Some believe that youth sports organizations should be licensed, just as day care centers and other organizations are. Background checks should be conducted on coaches. Coaches who believe in nonviolence should be hired and then trained in violence prevention. Unruly spectators, including parents, could be banned or (as in some places) placed far enough away from the field that they cannot attack a coach or referee or yell inappropriately at the players. Perhaps more violent spectators, and even some overly violent athletes, should be prosecuted in a criminal court. Finally, with regard to dating violence, mentoring programs could take an athlete-to-athlete approach to speak out against violence and teach athletes about healthy relationships. All of these measures could help emphasize the positive aspects of sports and reduce the some of the associated violence. Carol Lenhart Further Reading Bloom, G., & Smith, M. (1996). Hockey violence: A test of cultural spillover theory. Sociology of Sport Journal, 13, 65–77. Forbes, G., Adams-Curtis, L., Pakalka, A., & White, K. (2006). Dating aggression, sexual coercion, and aggression-supporting attitudes among college men as a function of participation in aggressive high school sports. Violence Against Women, 12(5), 441–455. Gardner, M., Roth, J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2009). Sports participation and juvenile delinquency: The role of the peer context among adolescent boys and girls with varied histories of problem behavior. Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 341–353.

Athletes and Violence Prevention

Kreager, D. (2007). Unnecessary roughness? School sports, peer networks, and male adolescent violence. American Sociological Review, 72, 705–725. Larkin, R. (2007). Toward a theory of legitimated adolescent violence. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting (AN34595204). SocINDEX with Full Text. Merten, M. (2008). Acceptability of dating violence among late adolescents: The role of sports participation, competitive attitudes, and selected dynamics of relationship violence. Adolescence, 43(169), 31–55. Miller, K., Melnick, M., Barnes, G., Sabo, D., & Farrell, M. (2006). Athletic involvement and adolescent delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 711–723. Swenson, D., Yard, E., Fields, S., & Comstock, R. (2009). Patterns of recurrent injuries among U.S. high school athletes, 2005–2008. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 37(8), 1586.

Athletes and Violence Prevention Athletes are over-represented in a number of categories of school crime and violence—in particular, dating/domestic violence and sexual assault. Yet many school and college athletic departments have developed or implemented programs designed to educate students on various types of crime and violence and to help athletes make healthy and safe choices. Additionally, most major sporting leagues have developed some type of program devoted to violence prevention. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) offers numerous resources to assist teams in understanding and preventing hazing. It also makes available a list of speakers who can make presentations focusing on alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs; gambling; sexual assault prevention; and stress management and mental health promotion. Many colleges hire professional speakers to address their athletes and sometimes other groups about specific topics. For example, Mike Domitrz is a speaker whose program “Can I Kiss You?” focuses on healthy relationships. Rape 101: Sexual Assault Prevention for College Athletes is a program designed for college football teams. Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP) is one of the most well-known violence prevention programs. MVP is housed at Northeastern University’s Center for Sport in Society. It was designed by feminist scholar Jackson Katz to teach studentathletes and student-leaders how to become involved in ending what have often been called “women’s issues”—rape, battering, and sexual harassment. The idea is that men and women can both be involved, and that student-athletes and members of other student organizations can take the lead in doing so. MVP trainers are former professional and college athletes.

33

34

Athletes and Violence Prevention

Instead of assuming that student-athletes and student-leaders are would-be victims or perpetrators, MVP utilizes a bystander approach. These bystanders are then empowered to intervene in safe but helpful ways when they witness abuse and assault. This emphasis is intended to reduce the defensiveness men often feel and the helplessness women often feel when discussing issues of men’s violence against women. An independent evaluation that spanned multiple years and utilized mixed messages has found that MVP produces significant changes in regard to students’ knowledge about gender violence. Project Teamwork (PTW) is another program housed at Northeastern University’s Center for Sport in Society. PTW was created in 1990 and funded by a three-year grant from Reebok. This six-hour diversity awareness and conflict resolution program is facilitated by former collegiate student-athletes. Multiracial, mixed-gender teams work with middle and high school students to teach them about issues of inequality and discrimination and to provide practical conflict resolution skills. The goal is to empower young people to make positive changes in society. After completing the six-week PTW curriculum, students form Human Rights Squads. These groups then work together to promote social justice issues in their schools and communities. Once a year, all of the Squads throughout Massachusetts gather at Northeastern University to celebrate their successes. Coaching Boys into Men (CBIM) is a program designed to help coaches talk to their athletes about respect, integrity, and nonviolence. It is promoted by the Family Violence Prevention Fund and has been adopted by school and youth groups throughout the country. The National Football League (NFL) has two programs that are designed to help reduce youth violence. NFL Youth Education Towns (YETs) are constructed in Super Bowl host cities. These education and recreational facilities are intended to outlive the actual event and create a positive impact in their communities. The NFL donates $1 million toward YET development during each Super Bowl, focusing on an underserved area of the host city. The Super Bowl host committee finds funds from community groups and corporations to match the NFL’s investment, and the NFL requires each host city to establish a 10-year operating and fundraising plan so that the YETs are a long-term investment. If the Super Bowl is hosted in a city that already has a YET center, the NFL donates the $1 million contribution to that existing center. Currently, there are 15 YETs in 12 cities: Atlanta, Detroit, Fort Lauderdale, Houston (2), Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, Phoenix, San Diego (2), Tampa (2), and Hawaii. While all of the YET facilities vary to some degree, each provides educational programs, access to physical fitness and personal development programs, recreation opportunities, technology, and many other resources. Further, the NFL partners with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America (B&GCA) to ensure that all centers offer programs and services that

Auvinen, Pekka-Eric

effectively meet the needs of youth in the areas of education, technical training, life-skills development, and recreation. Additionally, the NFL, working with Scholastic, Inc., has created an educational curriculum called One World that emphasizes diversity and acceptance. The 10-week program was created after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. It addresses stereotyping, bigotry, bullying, and racism and can be used in classrooms or afterschool programs. Major League Baseball (MLB) began a relationship with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America in 1997. B&GCA is a national network of more than 3,700 neighborhood-based facilities annually serving 4.4 million young people, primarily from disadvantaged circumstances, in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands plus domestic and international military bases. Its programs emphasize educational achievement, career exploration, drug and alcohol avoidance, health and fitness, gang and violence prevention, cultural enrichment, leadership development, and community service. Since 1997, MLB and B&GCA have worked together to establish more than 1,000 Reviving Baseball in Inner Cities (RBI) Leagues, which can assist urban youth in resisting crime and violence by offering another prosocial choice. The collaboration has also promoted B&GCA though print, radio, and television public service advertising campaigns. Individual teams and players also work with their local Boys & Girls Clubs to assist young people. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Boys and Girls Clubs of America: Official Charity of MLB: http://mlb.mlb.com/ mlb/official_info/community/bgca.jsp Can I Kiss You?: http://www.canikissyou.com/ Mentors in Violence Prevention: http://www.sportinsociety.org/vpd/mvp.php NFL Youth Education Towns: https://www.jointheteam.com/programs/program .asp?p=9&c=1 NFL’s One World Program Teaches Diversity, Unity: https://www.jointheteam .com/features/?f=34&p=6&c=3 The Program: Coaching Boys Into Men. http://www.coaches-corner.org/the-program/ Project Teamwork: http://www.sportinsociety.org/vpd/ptw.php

Auvinen, Pekka-Eric On November 7, 2007, in Tuusula, Finland, a city about 30 miles from the country’s capital, a school shooting took place at Jokela High School. PekkaEric Auvinen, age 18 and a student of the school, killed 6 students, the school nurse, and the principal, and injured at least 10 others; he then killed himself.

35

36

Auvinen, Pekka-Eric

Auvinen was described by others as a loner who had suffered from bullying. He described himself as an outcast on his YouTube profile. However, his friends saw him as a normal student who was pretty happy. Auvinen had been on antidepressant medications since the age of 17. The drugs he was taking, however, have been known to cause thoughts of suicide in young adults. Friends said that Auvinen had been changing before the shooting, and they had been seeing a different side to him. When a friend expressed concern to him about his change in behavior, Auvinen claimed he was only joking about comments he would make and drawings of massacres. The friend did not think he would actually Police officers walk to the Jokela High School do anything. building in Jokela, Finland, on November 8, 2007, one day after a student killed six students, the Auvinen was a member of the principal, and the school nurse. (AP/Wide World Helsinki Shooting Club, which recPhotos) ommended that he get a more powerful gun than the one he owned. His application for the weapon was turned down, however, because it was felt to be too strong of a gun for his goal, which he stated was target practice. Auvinen used a .22 caliber pistol during the Jokela school shooting, which he named Catherine. He had no previous record and had no previous incidents at school, unlike some other school shooters. Auvinen was called “the YouTube Killer,” after it was discovered that he had posted approximately 90 videos on the website that were admiring of notorious killers, including Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (Columbine High School), Hitler and other Nazis, Jack the Ripper, Stalin, Timothy McVeigh, and Jeffrey Dahmer. He also included images of the burning of a cult’s compound in Waco, Texas, and other attacks. His user name on YouTube was Sturmgeist89; the word sturmgeist in German means “storm spirit.” Auvinen changed his user name to this one after his last choice, NaturalSelector89, was taken down by YouTube. One video he posted imitated a video made by Harris and Klebold, the school shooters at Columbine High School. The most serious video Auvinen posted was titled “Jokela High School Massacre 11/7/07,” which chronicled his plans before he carried out the shooting.

Auvinen, Pekka-Eric

In the video, he was shown holding a gun as he claimed that he was a social Darwinist and stated that he would weed out the weak people in society. Auvinen kept saying that he was willing to die for what he believed in, which was changing what he felt to be a messed-up society. In his video foreshadowing what was to come, he also told viewers not to blame anyone except him for what would happen. He said it was not video games, movies, his parents, or anything else that caused him to do what he would do, but instead his own beliefs. He basically said it was him against the world. “Jokela High School Massacre” was the last video Auvinen posted before the shooting. A suicide note written by Auvinen was found after the shooting. In it, he discussed how he hated society and gave his goodbyes to his family. Many have discussed similarities between this shooting and the one in Columbine High School in the United States. As previously mentioned, Auvinen included Columbine imagery in his YouTube videos. He also used some of the same music in his YouTube postings that Eric Harris, one of the perpetrators of the Columbine massacre, used on his internet. Another similarity was that Auvinen played the video game Doom, which many believe played a large part in motivating the Columbine shootings. Also, all three of these shooters— Auvinen, Harris, and Klebold—had been bullied. On the day of the shooting, Auvinen killed the headmistress, a nurse, and six students, including five males and one female. Everyone who died that day was shot more than once, some as many as 20 times. According to police, this behavior indicates that Auvinen thought about each shooting, instead of shooting wildly. Also, he targeted his victims’ heads and chests. Police said those killed did not move after they were shot, which indicated how deadly even the first shots were. According to officials, the victims most likely could not have been helped even if emergency services came right away, owing to the serious nature of their injuries. Many more students were injured. Although police believe Auvinen was not targeting any students specifically, he did shoot some and chose not to shoot others. The principal, Helena Kalmi, was killed in an execution-style murder. At first, she ran away from Auvinen, but then for unknown reasons—possibly attempting to stop him—she went back to him. At that point, Auvinen forced her to her knees and shot her seven times, while a number of ninth graders in a classroom watched through the window. Police investigators did not believe the principal was a primary target for Auvinen, although they discovered a disagreement between the two had occurred before the shooting occurred. Auvinen then shot the nurse, who was trying to assist injured students. In keeping with Auvinen’s YouTube profile and videos of changing society, it appeared that Auvinen was trying to start a student revolution during the shooting, as he tried to persuade the other students to destroy the school. However, no

37

38

Auvinen, Pekka-Eric

students joined him. While he was yelling at them to join him, Auvinen was roaming the school randomly shooting his gun. The shooting started around 11:40 A.M., and the police were called 3 minutes later. The police came 11 minutes after they were called, although they did not actually go into the school until 3 hours later. By 12:30 P.M., there were approximately 100 police officers surrounding the building. Auvinen used 69 out of the roughly 400 bullets he brought with him. He also tried to set a fire in the school, although it did not work. When police arrived and tried to force him to surrender, he responded by shooting at them. Sometime during this period and in the midst of the commotion caused by students jumping out of windows and trying to escape the shooting, Auvinen shot himself in the head. He did not die at the scene, but rather succumbed to his injury later at the hospital. Sources differ on the length of the shooting incident, citing times varying between 20 and 40 minutes. After Auvinen was found injured, the police continued to scour the building, making sure there were no other shooters. In the wake of this shooting, Finland considered changing its school security measures. The Finnish government also began considering passing stricter gun laws, as the country has the third highest gun ownership rate among civilians in the world. However, one suggested change—raising the minimum age for gun ownership to 18—would not have made a difference in this incident. The Jokela shooting was very shocking to the Finnish population, although it has a strong tradition of supporting gun ownership. According to a number of sources, school shootings are not very common in Finland. In fact, the shooting by Pekka-Eric Auvinen was only the second school shooting in Finland’s history. The only other incident occurred in 1989, when a 14-year-old shot two students at his school. However, there had been other public shootings in Finland, just not in schools. For example, in 1994, a 22-year-old shot 3 people while he was on army leave. In 2002, a 19-year-old killed 7 people and injured 115 with a bomb in a shopping center. On September 23, 2008, a year after Auvinen’s shooting, another school shooting occurred in Kauhajoki, Finland. Ten people were shot and killed by Matti Juhani Saari, who then killed himself. Finnish officials believe Saari knew Auvinen. Finnish police had to deal with many threats to schools after Auvinen’s shooting, which they believe involved people copying that incident. Only two days after the Jokela shooting, threats were made against three different schools on the Internet. One of these was in Tuusula, just like the Jokela shooting; the others were in Maaninka and Kirkkonummi. Three weeks after Auvinen’s shooting, the police made a public statement urging people to stop making threats against schools.

Auvinen, Pekka-Eric

After the shooting, people also threatened Auvinen’s parents; the police gave them protection. The Jokela school shooting was a case in which there was no one to prosecute, as Auvinen killed himself. Sharon Thiel Further Reading Lieberman, J., & Sachs, B. (2008). School shootings. New York: Kensington. Man kills eight at Finnish school. (2007). BBC. Retrieved November 2, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/ School massacre: Ninth graders saw killing of school principal. (2007). Helsingin Sanomat. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://www.hs.fi/ School shootings rare in Finland. (2007). YLE. Retrieved November 7, 2008, from http://www.yle.fi/news/left/id74423.htm Sturmgeist89’s YouTube rant. (2007). Herald Sun. Retrieved November 22, 2008, from http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun

39

This page intentionally left blank

B Bath, Michigan, School Bombing The small community of Bath, Michigan, was the scene of the largest school bombings in terms of loss of life in U.S. history. On May 18, 1927, the North Wing of Bath Consolidated School exploded, leading to the deaths of 38 students plus five adults. The final death toll stood at 45 and included the perpetrator and his wife (who was killed before the bombing at the school took place). The perpetrator of this mass murder was school board member Andrew Kehoe, a 55-year-old man who lived in the small community. Although the bombing in Bath resembles many contemporary news stories, the story of this small community and those who lost their lives is not widely known. In 1927, the Bath Township, located 10 miles northeast of Lansing, was a small agricultural community. There were no street lights in Bath—just one road ran through the middle of town. There was a drug store, a gas station, a small grocery store, and an auto repair/blacksmith shop. There was also the recently built Bath Consolidated School, located in the town’s center. In 1922, the citizens of Bath voted to form a consolidated school distinct to serve the school-aged children of Bath and the surrounding areas. As was the case for all public schools in the United States, the township planned to support the school through property taxes levied on property owners. When the newly constructed Bath Consolidated School opened, there were 236 students enrolled from first through 12th grades. Andrew Kehoe was born in Tecumseh, Michigan, on February 1, 1872. His mother died when Kehoe was very young and his father soon remarried. According to some sources, the relationship between Kehoe and his stepmother was not good. When Kehoe was 14 years of age, his stepmother suffered a horrible accident in their home: While she was attempting to light the family’s oil stove, the stove exploded. Kehoe was home at the time of the explosion but reportedly did little to help his stepmother. She later died as a result of the burns she sustained

41

42

Bath, Michigan, School Bombing

in the explosion. Some believed at the time that Kehoe was involved in the accident. Kehoe completed high school and later attended Michigan State College in East Lansing, where his interests included electronics and mechanics. He traveled during his early adult years to the Midwest to continue his study of electronics. Eventually he returned to Michigan and married Nellie Price. Kehoe had met Nellie while attending Michigan State College. Once married, the couple bought a 185-acre farm from the estate of one of Nellie’s uncles near the township of Bath. They remained there until their deaths in May 1927. Kehoe was known throughout the area as intelligent, meticulous, and good with machinery and electronics. He was also considered an expert in the use of dynamite and explosives, which were common tools among local farmers for clearing land and stump removal. But there was also a darker side of Andrew Kehoe—he was known for his short temper and the cruel treatment of his farm animals. Nellie Kehoe contracted tuberculosis, and required many hospitalizations over the years. Her chronic condition was thought to have placed a severe drain on the family finances. Kehoe was publicly critical of the property tax rates assessed by the Bath Consolidated School District and he eventually stopped making his mortgage payments. In an ironic twist, he was elected to the school board in 1924 and served as Treasurer. Throughout this time, Kehoe developed an antagonistic relationship with School Superintendent Emory Huyck, whom he consistently accused of financial mismanagement. While on the school board, Kehoe campaigned for lower taxes, and he blamed the school district for much of his personal financial troubles. Kehoe was an enigma: He was critical of the school district itself, yet he volunteered around the school as an informal mechanic or handyman. On the morning of May 18, 1927, Kehoe’s neighbor, Monty Ellsworth, was planting melons on his farm. He later recalled that at 9:45 A.M., he felt “a tremendous explosion.” Ellsworth could not tell where the explosion originated, but his wife was on the second story of their home and could see smoke coming from the east, where the Bath school was located. Monty Ellsworth detected smoke coming from the Kehoe Farm to the west. Suddenly the smoke in the direction of the school cleared, and Mrs. Ellsworth screamed, “My God, the schoolhouse has blown up!” Both Ellsworths ran for the family car and drove as fast as they could to the site that was once the Bath Consolidated School. When they arrived, there were already a dozen or so people on the scene, and the Ellsworths were told that their son, a second-grader, was free from the rubble and evidently unharmed. Immediately Monty Ellsworth began assisting others. The scene was horrific. The walls of the building had been blown outward, allowing the roof to collapse down into the classrooms, trapping many children. Children both living and dead could be seen in the rubble. It quickly became clear

Bath, Michigan, School Bombing

that the rescue effort would require many tools. Ellsworth, along with other townspeople, went back to their homes to gather the necessary items. As he drove back toward his farm, Ellsworth passed Andrew Kehoe driving in the opposite direction, toward the school. Kehoe smiled and gave Ellsworth a big wave. At that time, no one realized that two bomb blasts had already taken place in Bath that morning: one at the Kehoe farm and one at the school. A third explosion was still to come. Throughout the preceding days, Andrew Kehoe had filled the back seat of his car with metal bits and debris: nails, old pieces of farm machinery, broken tools, and anything else he could find that would act as shrapnel. He then loaded a large amount of dynamite behind the front seat and placed a loaded rifle in the passenger’s seat. He drove to the Bath Consolidated School site. When he arrived, he saw Superintendent Huyck and called him over to the car. One eyewitness stated that once Huyck got close to the vehicle, Kehoe fired the rifle into the back seat. The dynamite in the car detonated, causing a third large explosion, instantly killing Kehoe and Huyck, along with Postmaster Glenn O. Smith and Smith’s fatherin-law. Cleo Claton, a second grader who had survived the school explosion, was hit and killed by flying shrapnel from Kehoe’s car. Several others in the crowd of rescuers were injured in this third and final blast. Those on the scene were now in complete shock. Many did not understand the source of the explosions. O. H. Buck was a foreman for a road crew working in the area. He described the scene: “I began to feel as though the world was coming to an end. I guess I was a bit hazy. Anyway, the next thing I remember I was out on the street.” Hundreds of people worked all day to save children and teachers from the debris of the Bath school building. Volunteers came from surrounding communities, many bringing much needed equipment plus human power. Fire fighters and the Fire Chief of the Lansing Fire Department came to aid the effort, along with members of the Michigan State Police. A triage center was set up in the pharmacy and a temporary morgue in the Town Hall. Ambulances joined the steady stream of personal vehicles to transport the injured to hospitals in Lansing. Michigan Governor Fred Green arrived in Bath in the afternoon and immediately pitched in to help. As the relief effort went on throughout the day, another 500 pounds of dynamite was found in the school’s South Wing—unexploded. The Michigan State Police immediately stopped the recovery effort and disarmed Kehoe’s last unexploded device. In the aftermath of the disaster, along with the discovery of the South Wing unexploded device, a full and complete picture of horrific mass murder began to emerge. Investigators moved to Kehoe’s farm to investigate the fires seen by Ellsworth earlier in the day. The next day, investigators combing through the remains of Kehoe’s farm discovered the badly burned corpse of Nellie Kehoe. Hospital records showed that she had been released from St. Lawrence Hospital in

43

44

Baylor College Basketball Murder Case

Lansing on May 16. The coroner speculated that her death was caused by blunt-force trauma to the head before the fire took place. All of Kehoe’s animals were trapped in their pens and stalls and died as a result of the fire. Investigators at the Kehoe farm found a wooden sign on the fence that carried one last message: “Criminals are made, not born.” The investigators estimated that the unused materials and farm equipment would have easily paid off Kehoe’s mortgage. Andrew Kehoe devised a merciless act of terror. His actions took the lives of 44 other people, most of whom were children. Somehow the story of the Bath School Bombing has faded from history. The week following the bombing in Bath, another famous Michigander made national headlines: Charles Lindbergh made his historic trans-Atlantic flight on May 20–21, 1927. The Bath School Bombing may not be a well-known story, but it remains the most costly act of school violence in U.S. history. Karen Lindsey Further Reading The Bath School Disaster on Rootsweb: http://freepages.history.rootsweb .ancestry.com/~bauerle/disaster.htm Bernstein, A. (2009). Bath massacre: America’s first school bombing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Information about the Bath School Disaster (includes the text of Monty J. Ellsworth’s book): http://daggy.name/tbsd/ National Public Radio: Bath School disaster. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/ templates/story/story.php?storyId=103186662

Baylor College Basketball Murder Case The Baylor college basketball team was already in trouble when perhaps the most tragic of all sports scandals occurred. Under Coach Dave Bliss, the team was under investigation by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) for a number of violations when details emerged in October 2003 about Coach Bliss’s lurid attempts to cover up under-the-table payments to players. On June 12, 2003, team member Carlton Dotson shot and killed teammate Patrick Dennehy while the two were firing pistols at a gravel pit. Dotson told no one. A week later, Dennehy’s family reported him missing when they were unable to contact him. Dotson virtually turned himself in to authorities in his home state of Maryland, having called them to report that he needed help because he heard voices. He reportedly confessed to killing Dennehy to an FBI agent, but told the agent that he did it in self-defense, claiming Dennehy had tried to kill him at the gravel pit but his gun jammed. Speaking to reporters later, however, Dotson denied

Baylor College Basketball Murder Case

that he had confessed. Six weeks after his disappearance but just days after Dotson’s arrest, Dennehy’s decomposed body was found near the gravel pit outside of Waco, Texas. He had been shot twice in the head. Dotson was at first ruled incompetent to stand trial and sent to a state mental facility, as he claimed to suffer from hallucinations and paranoia. He thought people were trying to kill him because he was Jesus. Doctors at the facility believed he was faking, however. Just as the trial was about to commence, Dotson pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison. Coach Bliss had been making payments to Dennehy to cover his tuition and other expenses, in violation of NCAA regulations. Bliss feared that his blatant disregard for the NCAA rules would be uncovered during the investigation of Dennehy’s murder. He concocted the story that Dennehy was really a drug dealer who paid his own tuition through his “work.” Unbeknownst to Bliss, Assistant Coach Abar Rouse had taped conversations capturing incriminating information about Bliss’s rules violations as well as his plan to cover up those offenses. Bliss was even heard trying to convince another player to go along with his “drug dealer” story. Bliss was forced to resign on August 8 after admitting that two players were receiving improper payments (totaling more than $30,000) and that he had tried to cover everything up. He was banned from being hired by an NCAA-member team without “just cause,” at least until 2015. It was later revealed that Bliss had also made payments to amateur teams with standout players and covered up failed drug tests for players. He did some coaching after he left Baylor, spending one season with the Dakota Wizards of the Continental Basketball Association (CBA) and then a summer in China with a team from Athletes in Action, a ministry that uses sports as a platform. In summer 2009, Bliss moved back to Texas, as his daughter had given birth to his new granddaughter. He claimed he let the competitive world of sports get the best of him. The NCAA considered shutting down the Baylor basketball program, but reconsidered when Baylor self-imposed sanctions. These included the resignation of Bliss, the loss of scholarships, and a ban on postseason play. The NCAA added to that punishment five years of probation and a ban from playing any nonconference games for one season. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Finley, P., Finley, L., & Fountain, J. (2008). Sports scandals. Westport, CT: Praeger. Jimenez, D. (2009, July 18). Bliss back in Texas again after Baylor basketball scandal. USA Today. Retrieved April 22, 2010, from http://www.usatoday.com/ sports/college/mensbasketball/2009-07-18-bliss-back-in- texas_N.htm

45

46

Beslan School Hostage Crisis

Lindgren, H. (2002, August 31). The way we live now: 8-31-03; Blood sport. New York Times Magazine. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/ 2003/08/31/magazine/the-way-we-live-now-8-31-03-blood- sport.html

Beslan School Hostage Crisis The Russian republic of North Ossetia-Alania is home to many Russian military bases, and a major city there is Beslan (population = approximately 35,000). In early September 2004, a hostage crisis in Beslan resulted in the death of at least 386 children, adults, rescuers and hostage takers in what became known as the Beslan Massacre. This situation originated as a terrorist attack during the Second Chechen War, in which the perpetrators aimed to capture world attention and direct it to the plight of the Chechens. The attackers also expected that it might lead to ethnic violence in the Caucasus and result in spreading conflict throughout the region. The origins of the hostage crisis lay in the events that had taken place in Chechnya since some Chechens declared independence in 1991 under Dzhokhar Dudayev. This event led to the First Chechen War, as the Russian Federation sought to retain its control over Chechnya, an area rich in oil. The war lasted from 1994 until 1996, when Russian President Boris Yeltsin ordered a ceasefire, leading to a peace treaty in 1997. By this time Chechnya had suffered badly, with at least 35,000 civilians dead, as many as 7,500 Russian soldiers dead, and perhaps as many as 15,000 Chechen separatists killed. Although the fighting had stopped, the region became lawless, with hundreds of kidnappings for ransom, and clashes with the leaders of the increasingly militant Chechen separatists embracing fundaAn elderly woman carries a small child past the mentalist Islam. This instability led to ruins of the Beslan school just days after the the Second Chechen War, which saw deadly hostage crisis that took the lives of nearly the destruction of much of the rest of 400 people, mostly young children, in North Ossetia, Russia, in 2004. (AP/Wide World Photos) Chechnya.

Beslan School Hostage Crisis

Many of the Russian attacks on Chechens were launched from bases in the North Ossetia-Alania. Though most of the fighting took place in Chechnya, some Chechens had launched attacks in Moscow and other places in September 1999. These assaults resulted in the deaths of 300 civilians as apartments were bombed, some of which collapsed. Some of the bombers were arrested and jailed by Russian courts in January 2004. It seemed likely that the Chechens would attack elsewhere, but few expected that the target would be a school. The school chosen for the attack was Comintern Street S.N.O. Some sources claimed that the Ossetian militia had used this school before the First Chechen War as a site to intern civilians from Ingushetia, a small Russian republic closely connected with Chechnya. Some media reports stated that some of the Ingush civilians were held in the school’s gymnasium, which may have also helped influence the choice of the school as a target. Russian government officials have denied claims that some Chechens disguised themselves as repairmen and hid weapons and explosives in the school during the summer holidays. The Chechens decided to take over the school on September 1, the first day of the Russian school year. This date is known as the “Day of Knowledge” because both new and returning students are accompanied by their parents, and often grandparents and other relatives, in a series of events held at schools to familiarize the entire community with the school curriculum and plans. This practice meant that there would be large numbers of adults at the Beslan school, which normally housed approximately 800 students and 60 teachers and support staff. The Chechen separatists—men and women—who stormed the building may have arrived in two groups. It was subsequently estimated that as many as 32 participated in the assault. They seized control of the school, firing into the air with machine guns. Some 50 people managed to flee the school, while others hid in various rooms, particularly the boiler room. Armed police and one armed civilian fired at the attackers, killing one of them and wounding two others. Ultimately, the terrorists managed to get between 1,100 and 1,200 hostages—children, adult relatives, and teachers—and herd them into the school gymnasium. There they ordered everyone to speak in Russian only, shooting dead a man who translated the order into Ossetic, the local language. Another student’s father was shot dead for refusing to kneel for the attackers, and another was killed when he was found using a mobile telephone; the terrorists had ordered everyone to hand over their telephones. The terrorists also isolated 17 adult males whom they thought might pose a physical threat to them, and shot them all. One of these men was badly injured and survived, and another managed to escape. By this time, the Russian police and army had surrounded the school, albeit not very effectively. Many local people had arrived at the site and were anxious about relatives held at the school, and some of these newcomers were armed. To stop the authorities from storming the gymnasium, the terrorists put explosive devices

47

48

Beslan School Hostage Crisis

around the room and stated that they would kill 50 hostages for each Chechen killed by the authorities. They were also anxious to prevent the police from using gas to subdue the attackers, as they had done in the Moscow Dubrovka Theater in October 2002, and smashed the windows to thwart this tactic. Although the terrorists wanted Alexander Dzasokhov, the president of North Ossetia, to negotiate with them, the Russian Federal Security Service (F.S.B.) refused to let him do so. Consequently, they planned on how to storm the building. By the end of that day the United Nations Security Council, at the request of Russia, demanded the “immediate and unconditional release of all hostages of the terrorist attack.” On the second day of the hostage crisis, the terrorists refused to allow food, water, or medicine to be taken in to the hostages, and would not permit authorities to remove the dead bodies. They attacked the adults and children, while the F.S.B. remained uncertain what to do. The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, made a short statement about the authorities wanting to rescue the hostages, but did not elaborate. By this time, two police headquarters were dealing with the crisis— one that was operating publicly, and another, secret one that was actually making the key decisions. Ruslan Arushev, a former Soviet Army general and a one-time president of Ingushetia, arrived at the school in the afternoon of the second day. The terrorists released 15 children and 11 nursing mothers to him. Arushev was also given a videotape of the conditions in the gymnasium: The hot weather and the large number of people in the room meant that some people, especially many children, took off some of their clothes. However, without water or food, both children and adults started fainting. That afternoon terrorists fired grenades at a nearby police car, but the Russian authorities held their fire. It was clear that the government was hoping that the terrorists would tire first. It also seems possible that some of the Chechens were taking drugs to remain alert, resulting in them becoming unpredictable and sometimes hysterically shouting at crying children. On the third day, a number of local politicians arrived on the scene, a few stating that they were ready to offer themselves as hostages. Aslambek Aslakhanov, an adviser to the Russian president, and a former local police general, managed to get the names of some 700 well-known Russians who were willing to take the places of the children. It was agreed that Aslakhanov would meet with the terrorists at 3 P.M. Two hours before the planned meeting, two ambulances were allowed into the school grounds to remove the dead bodies. However, as they approached the school, an explosion occurred and shooting started, with parts of the gymnasium roof collapsing on the hostages below. Because many of the hostages were so weakened by not having eaten or had any water, many were not able to escape. Later investigations suggested that the explosion was a terrorist bomb that detonated prematurely.

Beslan School Hostage Crisis

Because the shooting took the authorities by surprise, they were not in a position to return fire immediately. As the terrorists started detonating bombs, the Russian troops stormed the building, with many hostages being killed as they tried to escape. After two hours of shooting, the Russians managed to take control of most of the school compound. One group of terrorists tried to hold out in the basement. Another group of 13 managed to break through the police cordon and enter a nearby building, which was subsequently destroyed by Russian tanks and flamethrowers. One suspected terrorist was lynched by a local crowd, and one was captured alive hiding under a truck. When Putin ordered the borders of North Ossetia closed the following day, rumors circulated that some of the terrorists had escaped. On September 4, Vladimir Putin appeared at the Beslan hospital where hundreds of people were being treated. It is believed that some 186 children, 148 adult hostages, several members of the security forces, and most of the terrorists were killed—for a total of at least 386 killed. Because of the high death toll, the Russian authorities came in for criticism on a number of fronts. Apart from their unwillingness to negotiate (though the shooting of hostages rendered such discussions very problematic), they did not have sappers or a bomb-disposal group on hand to defuse the bombs in the gymnasium, nor did they arrange for the fire brigade to be close by when the school was stormed. However, their biggest failure was that they did not recognize that many of the adult hostages and most of the children were so weakened, both emotionally and physically, by the 2½ days as hostages that they did not have the energy to escape. The terrorist aims of inciting a racial war did not succeed, but the event did lead to many members of the Russian public turning on Chechens. In addition, opinion polls revealed that many Russians started to support the death penalty for terrorism. Moreover, as many as one-third of Russians whose opinions were sought wanted all Chechens banned from major cities. Justin Corfield Further Reading Dolnik, A. (2007). Negotiating the impossible? The Beslan hostage crisis. London: Royal United Services Institute. Dunlop, J. (2006). The 2002 Dubrocka and 2004 Beslan hostage crises: A critique of Russian counter-terrorism. Stuttgart: Ibidem-Verlag. Giduck, J. (2006). Terror at Beslan: A Russian tragedy with lessons for America’s schools. Boulder, CO: Paladin Press. Lansford, L. (2006). Beslan: Shattered innocence. Charleston, SC: BookSurge, Phillips, T. (2007). Beslan: The tragedy of School Number 1. London: Granta Books. Uschan, M. (2005). The Beslan school siege and separatist terrorism. Strongsville, OH: Gareth Stevens Publishing.

49

50

Bias, Len

Bias, Len The cocaine overdose of University of Maryland superstar basketball player Len Bias prompted changes not only in the world of collegiate athletics, but in the United States in general. Bias’s death at age led to national discussion about drug abuse and motivated the U.S. Congress to enact massive changes in drug policy. Bias was the undeniable star of the University of Maryland’s 1986 basketball team. He was Maryland’s all-time leading scorer and a two-time Atlantic Coast Conference Player of the Year. He was also the secondoverall draft pick in the 1986–1987 draft, signing with the Boston Celtics as their number one pick. Bias collapsed in his dormitory room on June 19, 1986, at approxiCollege basketball star Len Bias poses in his mately 6:30 A.M. He and friend Brian University of Maryland uniform. Bias died from a Tribble, as well as teammates Terry drug overdose only two days after being drafted Long and David Gregg, had been by the Boston Celtics. (AP/Wide World Photos) having a “cocaine party” in which “scoops” of cocaine were available to each. Bias had ingested a large amount of the drug and suffered three seizures before the paramedics arrived and pronounced him dead at 8:50 A.M. A subsequent search found nine grams of cocaine in Bias’s car. Long and Gregg were kicked off the team for the 1986–1987 season, and the loss of the three players resulted in the team enduring its worst season ever. Charges against Long and Gregg were dropped in exchange for their testimony against Tribble, who was acquitted in June 1987 of having provided Bias with the cocaine. Immediately, allegations were made against Maryland coach Charles “Lefty” Driesell for tolerating drug use among his players and failing to uphold even the most minimal academic standards. Driesell had previously referred to cocaine as “performance enhancing.” Many accused the coach of recruiting athletes who were tremendously gifted athletically but who were very marginal academically. Although he resigned from the head coach position, Driesell went on to take the position of Assistant Athletic Director in charge of fundraising. He later coaches

Big Brothers Big Sisters

at James Madison University and Georgia State. He retired in 2003 and was named to the National Collegiate Basketball Hall of Fame in 2007. The National Basketball Association (NBA) vowed to better investigate the private lives of players who were suspected of drug abuse, a move that was contested by the player’s union. At the time, the NBA drug-tested athletes only when it had reason to believe they were using illegal substances. Many called on the league to institute more testing in the wake of Bias’s death. Congress used the Bias case as a high-profile example of why tougher drug laws were needed. Democrats seized the opportunity to best Republicans and “get tough on crime” by enacting mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 required mandatory minimum sentences, ranging from 5 to 10 years, for those found with a specified amount of certain drugs. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Finley, P., Finley, L., & Fountain, J. (2008). Sports scandals. Westport, CT: Praeger. Neff, C., & Selcraig, B. (1986, November 10). One shock wave after another. Sports Illustrated Vault. Retrieved April 22, 2010, from http://sportsillustrated .cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1065459/4/index.htm Sterling, E. (n.d.). Drug laws and snitching: A primer. PBS Frontline. Retrieved April 22, 2010, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/ primer/

Big Brothers Big Sisters Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) is the oldest and largest youth mentoring organization in the United States. It has provided one-on-one youth services for more than a century for children ages 6 through 18. BBBS was started in 1904 when New York City court clerk Ernest Coulter noticed an increased number of boys coming through the courtroom. Coulter believed that the guidance of caring adults could help kids stay out of trouble, so he began seeking volunteer mentors. At about the same time, a group called the Ladies of Charity began to assist girls in the New York Children’s Court. This organization later became known as Catholic Big Sisters. Both groups worked independently until 1977, when they merged to become Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. The organization now operates in all 50 states and in 12 countries through its global associate, Big Brothers Big Sisters International—Australia,

51

52

Biological Theories

Bermuda, Bulgaria, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, and South Africa. Students are carefully matched with a trained adult. Whenever possible, BBBS pairs youth with mentees who are the same sex and same ethnicity. Volunteers are screened and undergo training before they are assigned a youth mentee. Mentors may meet with their mentees in school or in the community, with a commitment to do so at least once per week. These sessions are supposed to be fun, not necessarily academic. Mentors and mentees might get together to play games, walk outside, attend events, share food, or engage in a number of other activities. BBBS treats parents or guardians as partners, ensuring that mentees are positive role models for children but not replacements for family. Evaluation results have shown BBBS to have a positive impact in the lives of youth. A study conducted in1992–1993 found that, after spending 18 months with their mentors, young people in the program were: • • • • • • •

46% less likely to begin using illegal drugs 27% less likely to begin using alcohol 52% less likely to skip school 37% less likely to skip a class More confident of their performance in schoolwork One-third less likely to hit someone Getting along better with their families

In addition to providing information about ways to get involved (as a mentor or a mentee), the history of the organization, and its programs, the BBBS website features specific information on African American, Hispanic, Native American, faith-based, and military mentoring. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Big Brothers Big Sisters: http://www.bbbs.org Big Brothers Big Sisters International: http://www.bbbsi.org/

Biological Theories Some researchers maintain that there is a biological basis for crime and violence, theorizing that biological and genetic factors affect the brain and central nervous system in ways that lead to delinquent behavior. Biological theories (sometimes

Biological Theories

called trait theories or positivism) of crime and violence focus on how a youth’s brain and central nervous system respond to the world, and conclude this response is the basis for criminality. To the biological theorist, delinquency is not a youth’s choice, but rather a product of biological and genetic factors (or traits) outside the offender’s control. Biological theorists view delinquency as “deviant” or “abnormal.” They consider crime to be a product of physical or psychological traits, including intelligence quotients (IQs) and body types. Biological theorists believe that the scientific method can be used to measure the traits of delinquent (abnormal) youths, with such youths being compared to nondelinquent (normal) youths to determine which traits are connected with crime and violence. Early biological theories focused on the physical features of delinquents, stating that they “looked” different from non-offenders. Cesare Lombroso (1835–1909), an Italian physician, was the first to put forward this theory. He is considered to be the father of criminology. According to Lombroso’s theory, which he termed “criminal atavism,” delinquents were biologically and mentally less evolved than the average person. While Lombroso was a believer in the theory of evolution, he did not believe that all people were equally evolved. Notably, he viewed delinquents as “throwbacks” to earlier stages in the evolutionary process. Lombroso’s research focused on the measurement of teeth, eyes, ears, jaws, and arms of offenders, and compared these measurements to those in the general population. Often, the larger the features, the more they resembled animal features; thus Lombroso stated that such characteristics were indicative of lesser stages of human evolution. He also researched other features, including purported insensitivity to pain, cruelty, impulsiveness, and tattooing. The more of these features a delinquent exhibited, the more Lombroso thought it likely that the individual was inclined toward criminality. In short, he suggested that criminals were born that way. Lombroso is called the father of criminology because he was the first to apply scientific principles to the study of crime. He carefully measured his subjects of study, recorded his findings, and based his theories on those findings. Later, English physician Charles Buckman Goring (1870–1919) built on Lombroso’s theories. Using scientific methods of measurement and observation, Goring concluded that Lombroso’s theory of criminal atavism was incorrect. Goring theorized that delinquency was closely linked to a condition he called “defective intelligence”—an inherited trait passed on from parents. Based on this reasoning, Goring believed that delinquency could best be eliminated by regulating who could have children. People who were deemed to be feeble-minded, were epileptic, or had a history of mental illness or had “defective social instinct” were best prohibited from having children, he suggested. Researchers who agreed that delinquency was an inherited condition expanded on Goring’s work. Richard Louis Dugdale (1841–1883) and Arthur H.

53

54

Biological Theories

Estabrook traced the family trees of delinquents and criminals in an attempt to determine whether criminality is inherited and delinquency is genetically based. Both of these social scientists studied a particular family who had a crime record going back generations. The Juke family was written about in 1875 by Dugdale (The Jukes: A Study in Crime, Pauperism, Disease, and Heredity) and in 1916 by Estabrook (The Jukes in 1915). Dugdale found that from the 1700s to the mid1870s, the Juke family had produced 7 murderers, 60 habitual thieves, approximately 90 other criminals, 50 prostitutes, and 280 paupers. Estabrook, who followed up Dugdale’s work 41 years later, identified a further 378 prostitutes, 170 paupers, and 118 other criminals in the Juke family tree. Other researchers suggested that body type is an indicator of a propensity toward juvenile delinquency and criminality. William H. Sheldon, for example, thought that some body types make youths susceptible to delinquency. Seldon identified four different body types: (1) endomorphs—soft, round, overweight people; (2) mesomorphs—large, athletic, muscular people; (3) ectomorphs—thin, fragile, weak people; and (4) balanced (normal)—not overly fat, thin, or muscular. Sheldon’s theory, called “somatotyping,” stated that mesomorphs were the most likely to be associated with delinquency and crime because they had the body type inclined to be the most aggressive and violent. More modern social scientists focused on the biological and genetic make-ups of delinquents, in the belief that crime and violence are genetically inherited, just like hair and eye color or height. In the 1920s, German physician Johannes Lange conducted a study to determine a genetic link to crime. Although his study was criticized for weaknesses in his research methods, Lange reported a strong link between genetics and criminality. Lange’s findings were extended in the 1960s through the work of European researchers Karl O. Christiansen and Sarnoff Mednick. In their study of Dutch twins born between the years 1881 and 1910, Christiansen and Mednick found significant statistical support for a link between crime and genes. In investigations similar to the twin studies, other researchers sought a possible link between delinquency and adoption. In these studies, the criminality of parents was compared to that of their biological children who had been raised by adopted parents. In different adoption studies, researchers David Rowe, Sarnoff Mednick, and Jody Alberts-Corush all showed that delinquency—at least in part—is genetically linked. Recent studies seem to confirm these findings. In 2003, Jeanette Taylor conducted a similar study of teenaged male twins and concluded that violent and criminal traits were linked to genetic factors. It is worth noting that while these studies have produced statistically significant findings, the purported gene–crime link may be nothing more than an individual’s genetic trait interacting with certain environmental and social factors that bring out violent or criminal behaviors.

Biological Theories

In recent decades, researchers have concentrated on biological theories based on biochemical factors, such as the impact of nutrition on crime and violence. These studies focus on intakes of sugar, food additives, vitamins, and minerals, as well as everyday exposure to minerals such as lead, copper, and zinc. In the 1980s, separate studies by Alexander Schauss and the team of J. Kershner and W. Hawke indicated positive behavioral changes occurred in delinquent youths when they were fed balanced diets. Both sets of researchers found that high-protein, lowcarbohydrate, sugarless diets, with adequate vitamins and moderate intake of milk, significantly reduced delinquent behavior. Other experiments conducted in the New York City school system showed that students scored better on national achievement tests when they reduced their sugar intake and eliminated artificial flavors and preservatives from their diets prior to taking the tests. Other researchers have explored a possible link between delinquency and hormone activity (especially testosterone and serotonin). Many hormone levels peak between the ages of 13 and 19, corresponding with times of high levels of violence and crime in youths’ lives. Studies have shown that hormonal changes in teens are linked to delinquency and crime, particularly for teenage boys. Biological theories of juvenile violence and crime also focus on neurological factors. These theories study the brain and nervous system of delinquent offenders and compare them to the same systems in the average non-offender. As part of this work, researchers measure attention spans, learning ability, cognitive ability, brain waves, and heart rates. These social scientists believe that brain chemistry, as controlled by the endocrine system (glands that secrete hormones into the blood), is the key to understanding delinquent violence and crime. Some neurological studies of children have pointed to identifiable brain defects as a key cause of violence and aggression. These brain abnormalities, often called minimal brain dysfunction (MBD), are frequently linked to a mother’s addiction to drugs or alcohol during pregnancy and result in low birth weight, birth complications, childhood head injuries, or other genetically inherited factors for her child. In separate studies conducted by Stephen Tibbetts and Jean Seguin, brain activity in affected youths showed chemistry that may be linked to violence, aggression, anger, and crime. Specifically, some researchers are studying the potential relationship between learning disabilities (LD) and delinquency. Young people with learning disabilities have trouble reading, writing, listening, speaking, and organizing their thoughts. Learning disabilities are not associated with vision or hearing problems, motor handicaps, or mental retardation. Studies show that arrested and incarcerated children have higher rates of LD than the general population. In 1976, Charles Murray proposed two explanations for the high rates of LD youth in trouble. The first, which he called the “susceptibility rationale,” stated that LD offenders are impulsive, do not learn from experience, and stay engaged in violence or criminal activity despite being punished. The second, which Murray called the “school failure

55

56

Bishop, Amy

rationale,” suggested that LD youths act out violently or criminally because of their frustration at doing poorly in school. Biological theories of juvenile crime and violence have been criticized on a number of grounds. Often, researchers have used populations of documented youth offenders as samples for their studies, making it difficult to determine whether these offenders are representative of all youth or representative of only offenders who were apprehended. Other criticisms of biological theories suggest that they are politically or socially motivated, harkening back to the eugenics movement of Nazi Germany. Biological theories also often fail to take into consideration social forces, individual factors, social class, and gender issues. Proponents of biological theories stress that they do not view any biological theory as a generalizable explanation of all youth crime and violence, but simply suggest that biological theories can explain some aspect of delinquent behavior. The core principle of most biological theories is that some youth do have developmental issues that limit their ability to learn and cope with some situations and, as such, place these youths at a disadvantage in society. These developmental issues may be genetic, chemical, or hormonal and may manifest themselves as aggression, violence, or crime. Eric Bellone Further Reading Lombroso-Ferrero, G. (1911). Criminal man according to the classification of Cesare Lombroso. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith. Moffitt, T. (1993). Adolescent-limited and life course persistent antisocial behavior: A development taxonomy, Psychological Review, 100, 674–701. Raine, A., Lencz, T., Taylor, K., Hellige, J. B., Bihrle, S., Lacasse, L., et al. (2003). Corpus callosum abnormalities in psychopathic antisocial individuals. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60(11), 1134–1142. Rowe, D. (1995). The limits of family influence: Genes, experiences and behavior. New York: Guilford Press. Seguin, J., Phil, R., Harden, P., Tremblay, R., & Boulerice, B. (1995). Cognitive and neuropsychological characteristics of physically aggressive boys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 614–624. Sheldon, W. (1949). Varieties of delinquent youth. New York: Harper Bros.

Bishop, Amy On February 12, 2010, Amy Bishop, age 45, a neurobiology professor at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, shot and wounded three colleagues during a faculty meeting. Apparently Bishop was distraught because she had been informed

Bishop, Amy

she would not be granted tenure. Bishop was charged with capital murder and is currently awaiting trial. If convicted, she faces the death penalty. A promising neurobiologist, Bishop had been awarded grants for her work and was a key player in a biotechnology start-up company. She had helped develop a new approach to treating amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s disease), and a company was in the process of licensing her work for development. She and her husband, a computer engineer with a biology degree, had invented an automated system for incubating cells. Their system was considered to be a vast improvement over the Petri dish. Bishop is also the mother of four children. In retrospect, Bishop’s past suggests that she was troubled despite her many noteworthy accomplishments. Twenty-four years prior to the Alabama incident, Bishop shot and fatally wounded her brother, Seth Bishop, in their home in Braintree, Massachusetts. She was never charged in his death. Interestingly, the police report from the incident had been missing since 1988; after the 2010 shooting, the report was released. In it, Amy Bishop claimed she had been teaching herself to use the family’s shotgun after their home had been invaded. She said that she loaded the weapon but was unable to unload it, so she asked her brother for his help. The gun accidentally went off, killing her brother. Bishop said her mother, Judith Bishop, was present during the accident. Judith Bishop confirmed her daughter’s account of the event, according to the report. In 2010, in the wake of the Alabama shootings, Braintree Police Chief Paul Frazier expressed skepticism about Bishop’s earlier story, stating that the officer on duty, Ronald Solimini, remembered that Bishop had shot and killed her brother after an argument. She allegedly fired another round from the shotgun into the ceiling as she left the home, with the shotgun in tow. According to Officer Solimini, Bishop also pointed the shotgun at a vehicle in an attempt to get the driver to stop. Another officer, Timothy Murphy, seized the shotgun, and Bishop was arrested and taken to the police station. The booking officer at the time recalls getting a phone call, either from then Police Chief John Polio or from someone on his behalf, asking him to stop the booking. Bishop was then released. Polio, now 87, denied any impropriety. Seven years later, Bishop was the prime suspect in a 1993 mail bombing attempt involving a Harvard Medical School professor. She was never charged due to a lack of evidence, but colleagues claimed that her motive was similar to the one cited in the 2010 incident—Bishop had received a negative evaluation from the targeted professor. A former coworker at the research lab recalled that Bishop and the professor had a disagreement. She remembers that Bishop was smiling when she described the police questioning she underwent following the discovery of the bomb. Investigators said that they found a novel on her computer that described a scientist who had shot her brother and then sought redemption. On the day of her 2010 attack, Bishop taught her regular schedule of neuroscience and anatomy courses. She then headed to the third floor of the Shelby

57

58

Bishop, Amy

Center for Science and Technology for the faculty meeting. She sat quietly for 30 to 40 minutes, then pulled out a 9-millimeter handgun and began shooting. Either the gun jammed or she ran out of ammunition, prompting Bishop to flee the room, dumping her gun in a second-floor bathroom as she exited the center. Moments later, she was arrested outside the building. The deceased included G. K. Podila, the department’s chairman; Maria Ragland Davis; and Adriel D. Johnson Sr.—all biology professors. Two other biology professors, Luis Rogelio Cruz-Vera and Joseph G. Leahy, as well as a professor’s assistant, Stephanie Monticciolo, were injured. In general, Bishop’s colleagues were said to have respected her ability but found her hard to get along with. She had become convinced that the chemical engineering professors were trying to keep biology students from succeeding by making the classes too difficult, and this belief became an obsession. She was considered to be very outspoken, so the fact that she went on a shooting rampage shocked many, who thought she was not the type to bottle up her pain. Some students also had problems with Bishop’s teaching style. They said she simply read from the textbook in class but then tested them on material that she had not covered. Nursing students repeatedly complained about Bishop’s teaching methods to Dr. Podila, the department chairman, as well as to the dean. Some even signed a petition to have her removed. At the same time, Bishop was recognized as an advocate for students. She was vocally opposed to a new policy that would require freshmen and sophomores to live on campus, stating that this requirement was too expensive and would affect diversity. The policy was enacted despite her, and others’, opposition. Bishop’s husband, James Anderson, has continually expressed his love and support for his wife, although he insists he had no idea what prompted her attack. He did admit the two had visited a shooting range just two weeks before the incident, but stated the family did not own a gun and that he had no idea where she obtained the weapon she used in the attack. Anderson also said that his wife had been fighting the university for more than a year about her tenure status. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Canning, A., McPhee, M., Netter, S., & James, S. (2010, February 15). Alabama shooting suspect’s husband: “I’m no psychologist.” ABC News. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/alabama-university -shooting-suspect-amy-bishops-husband- idea/story?id=9839348&page=1 Dewan, S., & Robbins, L. (2010, February 13). A previous death at the hand of Alabama suspect. New York Times. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http:// www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/us/14alabama.html?pagewanted=1

Board of Ed. of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls

Sweet, L., Van Sack, J., Fargen, J., & Kantor, I. (2010, February 15). “Oddball” portrait of Amy Bishop emerges. Boston Herald. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1232943& format&page=1&list ingType=Loc

Board of Ed. of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls On June 27, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld as constitutional a school-based drug testing program required for participation in any extracurricular activity. The ruling in Board of Ed. of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls came seven years after the Court had upheld school-based drug testing for students involved in extracurricular sports (Vernonia School District v. Acton). In Earls, the Court held that the random drug testing policy instituted by

The decision of the Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County to require drug tests from all students participating in any extracurricular activity—even marching band and choir— was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. School officials argued that drug-using band members handling heavy equipment posed a safety threat to those around them. (iStockPhoto)

59

60

Board of Ed. of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls

Tecumseh (Oklahoma) School District, which required all middle and high school students to submit to a urinalysis if they wanted to participate in extracurricular activities, was lawful as a means of achieving the school district’s goal of preventing and deterring drug use. The Court used a balancing test established in Vernonia and, earlier, in TLO v. New Jersey to determine that this policy was not overly intrusive. Lindsay Earls and Daniel James, both 16 at the time, and Lindsay’s sister, Lacey, attended Tecumseh High and were tested in 1999 because they were involved in extracurricular activities. Lindsay was in the school choir and marching band as well as on the school’s Academic Team and in the National Honor Society. Daniel sought to be on the Academic Team as well. The families filed suit, asserting that the policy was a violation of the students’ Fourth Amendment right to privacy. In particular, Lindsay Earls was disturbed that a monitor would stand outside the bathroom, listening while students urinated. She was also concerned that the Academic Team, band, and choir were different from sports or other clubs in that they were part of the school’s curriculum and helped fulfill the district’s fine arts requirement. Students who refused to submit a sample would receive no credit in those courses. Once students provided the urine sample, results were released to appropriate school employees but not to law enforcement. If a student tested positive, he or she could agree to enroll in counseling within five days and would then be allowed to continue participating in extracurricular activities as long as the student also agreed to submit to another drug test in two weeks. Students were barred from participating in any activities if they did not agree to those conditions. If the second test was positive, the student was suspended from participation in extracurricular activities for two weeks and had to submit to monthly drug tests as well as complete 14 hours of substance abuse counseling. A third positive test resulted in suspension from all extracurricular activities for the remainder of the school year or for 88 days, depending which was longer. Oral arguments in the case were very heated. Much debate ensued over whether the drug testing policy was appropriate for students involved in all extracurricular activity, as previously the Vernonia decision has considered testing constitutional only when some type of safety concern was involved. The petitioners asserted there was a safety threat, bringing up the silly examples of drug-using band members with heavy equipment. Graham Boyd, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney representing the Earls and James, argued there was no safety threat for students in choir or band. Boyd also asserted that the policy was enacted with no evidence of an actual drug problem in the school; in fact, national data showed that teen drug use was on the decline. Further, discussion focused on whether it was logical to test students who were involved in extracurricular activities when data repeatedly showed that such individuals were the least likely to be

Board of Ed. of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls

using drugs. The Supreme Court Justices also disagreed about the intrusiveness of drug testing. Justice Anthony Kennedy, for example, maintained that drug testing was no more intrusive than requiring students to wear school uniforms. The Supreme Court eventually ruled 5–4 in support of Tecumseh’s drug testing policy. In doing so, the Justices viewed drug testing as an administrative search. As such, it need not be based on probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. Further, the Court held that students who elect to participate in extracurricular activities already have a reduced expectation of privacy. The Court did caution the school to ensure that the results were shared only with appropriate school personnel. As in the Vernonia case, the Court held that drug testing programs can be a deterrent to student drug use. The Justices generally believed drug testing helps students reject peer pressure—although the data seem to tell another story. A 2003 survey involving 76,000 students across the United States found that rates of drug use did not differ significantly between districts with drug testing programs and those without such programs. Justices David Souter, John Paul Stevens, and Sandra Day O’Connor dissented from the 2002 ruling, as they did in Vernonia. Souter was most bothered by the fact that not all of the extracurricular activities were voluntary. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was concerned that the court had backtracked on its decision in Vernonia, as the district could provide no specific justification for the policy or any safety threat. She also expressed concern that the decision could deter students from becoming involved in extracurricular activities. After the decision in 2002, the George W. Bush administration expressed support for greater use of school-based drug testing. Drug czar John Walters repeatedly called such a policy a deterrent, and the Bush administration even made available grant monies for districts wishing to implement drug testing programs. Estimates are that between 18% and 20% of school districts have implemented some type of drug testing program, most often for athletes. In addition to the concerns noted previously, critics of school-based drug testing note that it is quite expensive to implement. The tests that school districts use are quite vulnerable to cheating; at the same time, they are often not robust enough to provide accurate results. Further, critics assert that these programs assume students to be deviant, a stance that may undermine the trust between educators and students. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Finley, L., & Finley, P. (2004). Piss off! How drug testing and other privacy violations are alienating America’s youth. Monroe, ME: Common Courage. Hyman, I., & Snook, P. (1999). Dangerous schools. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

61

62

Bosse, Sebastian

Kern, J., Gunja, F., Cox, A., Rosenbaum, M., Appel, J., & Verma, A. (2006). Making sense of student drug testing: Why educators are saying no. Retrieved April 8, 2010, from http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/drug_testing _booklet.pdf

Bosse, Sebastian On November 20, 2006, 18-year-old Sebastian Bosse entered his former high school in northwestern Germany, where he shot five people and set off a series of smoke bombs before police found him dead. Bosse was masked and had pipe bombs and a knife strapped to his body. He had five more pipe bombs in his backpack that explosives experts diffused, and four more were found in his car, which was parked near the school. A school secretary called the police immediately when Bosse’s assault began, and heavily armed officers arrived quickly to begin searching the building. Bosse had retreated to the second floor, and as the officers searched they evacuated the building room by room. Officers fired no shots during the incident. A total of four students ages 12 to 16 and the head caretaker for the school were wounded, although none of the injuries were life-threatening. Twenty-two other individuals, most of them police, were treated for smoke inhalation from the bombs. The incident brought back memories of another German shooting rampage. In 2002, Robert Steinhauser, who had been expelled from Gutenberg Gymnasium in Erfurt, shot and killed 16 people before committing suicide. Bosse was described by his peers as a misfit. They said he was obsessed with carrying guns and often played violent video games. Students said he always wore a black hat and coat and kept to himself. Bosse had posted several pictures of himself on his website. In them, he was wearing a military-style uniform and holding a gun. He had also indicated that he planned to do something dangerous and that he was suicidal. He wrote about being treated as a “loser” by teachers and students, saying he intended to seek revenge. Bosse also expressed contempt for police and politicians. He had been caught with a loaded pistol several months prior to the school attack, and was set to go on trial for that offense the next day. A year later, two students in Cologne, Germany, were accused of plotting a similar assault on their school to commemorate the one-year anniversary of Bosse’s attack. The school principal had discovered a website in which one of the students glorified the Columbine (Colorado) attack. One of the suspects, who was 17, committed suicide during a confrontation at the school. The other confessed to the plot.

Bowling for Columbine

As of March 2009, Germany was considered second to the United States in terms of the number of deaths from school shootings. This finding renewed calls for stricter gun control laws. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Former student storms school, shooting five people. (2006, November 20). WHDH News. Retrieved April 29, 2010, from http://www3.whdh.com/news/articles/ world/BO34580/ Paterson, T. (2009, March 15). In Europe’s league of school shootings, Germany comes top. The Independent (UK). Retrieved April 30, 2010, from http://www .independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/in-europes-league-of-school-shootings -germany-comes-top-1645387.html Two students in Germany accused of plotting a school attack. (2007, November 18). Net News Publisher. Retrieved April 29, 2010, from http://www.netnewspublisher .com/two-students-in-germany- accused-of-plotting-a-school-attack

Bowling for Columbine Bowling for Columbine (2002) is the most well-known documentary film to address school violence. Written and directed by filmmaker and author Michael Moore, whose previous work included Roger & Me and The Big One, Bowling for Columbine offers a critique of some of the more commonly held explanations for school violence. In addition to addressing school violence in particular, Moore illustrates that the United States is a culture in which violence is endemic, and shows that easy access to guns makes lethal violence far more common in this country than in other industrialized nations. Approximately 11,000 people die each year in the United States from gun violence—far more than in neighboring Canada, the United Kingdom, or Japan. Moore includes “A Brief History of the United States” and a disturbing montage of actual footage that show how the United States has historically exploited people of color and used violence to maintain its position as a world power. Bowling for Columbine was the first documentary accepted into the Cannes Film Festival in 46 years, and the Cannes jury unanimously awarded it the 55th Anniversary Prize. Moore won the Academy Award for best documentary in 2003. The film’s title comes from a mistaken belief that the Columbine shooters—Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold—attended a school bowling class the morning of the 1999 massacre. The film features Moore’s discussion with an eclectic group of people who comment on violence, both inside and out of schools. Among others, he talks with

63

64

Bowling for Columbine

controversial musician Marilyn Manson, the creators of South Park, James Nichols (brother of Oklahoma City bombing accomplice Terry Nichols), and the National Rifle Association’s then president Charlton Heston. Manson’s music, some of which discusses suicide and seems to condone violence, was considered to be a major influence on the Columbine shooters. The musician offers a unique perspective, in the end asserting that the best way to reduce youth violence is to listen to kids. Moore also critiques the punitive trend in schools. In one scene he shows an absurd advertisement for a metal detector company that shows a boy unloading multiple high-powered weapons from his pants pockets. Moore uses this imagery to show how some of the responses to school Filmmaker Michael Moore stops for photographs violence, or the fear of it, are simply during the 60th Cannes Festival in Cannes, France, on making others wealthy. May 20, 2007. (Denis Makarenko/Dreamstime.com) Critics contend that Moore’s film is less documentary and more political argument. They note several errors in the film and cite examples of Moore making arguments that are, at best, a stretch. In the beginning of the film, Moore shows a bank in North Carolina that was offering a free gun in exchange for opening an account. Bank employees claim that Moore and his staff misled them and that, in actuality, the guns were shipped to recipients, not handed out on location. Moore also asserts that the violence at Columbine High School was somehow connected to the fact that Littleton, Colorado, is the home of Lockheed Martin, a major weapons manufacturer, which many assert is a weak linkage. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Bowling for Columbine: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/, http://www .bowlingforcolumbine.com/ Moore, M. (2002). Bowling for Columbine [motion picture]. Alliance Atlantis Communications.

Brazill, Nathaniel

Brazill, Nathaniel In 2000, there were 15,586 murders committed in the United States. Despite this large number, a single violent incident in Florida ignited a national forum on school violence, guns, and the way the U.S. criminal justice system should deal with juvenile offenders. On May 26, 2000, the last day of the year at Lake Worth Middle School, seventh grader Nathaniel Brazill was sent home for throwing water balloons. He returned later in the day with a .25-caliber handgun and entered his English Arts class demanding to see two female classmates. When teacher Barry Grunow refused his demand, Brazill shot him in the face and watched him die in front of his classroom door. Today, Brazill is 20 years old and serving a 28-year prison sentence at the Brevard County Correctional Institution in Florida for a second-degree murder conviction in the shooting death of Grunow. At the time of his crime, Brazill was 13 years and 8 months of age. In Florida, juveniles convicted of second-degree murder receive a sentence ranging from 25 years to life in prison—the same punishment meted out to adults. Although no one disputes the facts about how Grunow was killed, there is much speculation about what might have motivated Brazill to commit this crime and whether these underlying issues should have been taken into consideration in the criminal disposition of his case. Brazill was raised by his mother, Polly Powell, in a single-parent home. Brazill’s biological father, Nathaniel Brazill, Sr., maintained limited contact with Nathaniel. According to court records, Brazill had witnessed his mother being subjected to domestic violence at the hands of her former husbands and boyfriends since he was five years old. Despite his upbringing, Brazill was an honor student with near-perfect attendance and without any history of violence or discipline. School officials described him as a soft-spoken, bright, and well-liked child. According to the court transcripts of testimony by teachers and classmates, Brazill had often described Grunow as his favorite teacher. In fact, earlier on the day of the shooting, Brazill had asked Grunow to pose in a picture with him. However, according to academic progress reports, the student’s grades had been significantly dropping during the school year. On April 15, 2000, approximately one month before the shooting, Brazill wrote a letter to Grunow explaining that seventh grade had been a very difficult time in his life. He complained of being picked on by classmates and teachers during the school year and suggested that he might commit suicide. Brazill had also confided in friends that he was infatuated with one of his classmates, Dinora Rosales. Rosales was Brazill’s first girlfriend, who only six days before the shooting had given Brazill his first kiss. Rosales and fellow classmate Suzy Fleureme had been the two females Brazill had attempted to visit in Grunow’s classroom the day of the shooting. According to court testimony, an emotionally upset Brazill had

65

66

Brazill, Nathaniel

returned to school after being suspended, to say goodbye to Rosales before the beginning of summer break. In fact, on the day of the shooting, Brazill brought a few extra items on the bus with him to school: a card and flowers for Rosales. After the shooting, which was captured on the school’s surveillance camera, Brazill ran down the hall, pausing long enough to wave the gun at another teacher before fleeing the school grounds. Within minutes, Brazill flagged down a police cruiser driven by Officer Mike Mahoney, whom he knew from his neighborhood, fell to his knees in the street, and confessed to the shooting. After his arrest, Florida prosecutor Barry Krischer decided to try the 13-yearold Brazill as an adult, charging him with first-degree murder, which carried a penalty of life in prison, and under certain circumstances, the death penalty. According to the Florida Department of Corrections, at the time of Brazill’s arrest, there were 15 inmates who were between the ages 13 or 14 at the time of their crimes and had been convicted of first-degree murder. In the early 1990s, spurred by an alarming rise in juvenile crime, Florida amended its laws to make it easier to try youths as adults. In fact, Florida led the nation in prosecuting juvenile offenders as adults. National data on the number of juvenile cases tried in adult criminal court in the United States do not currently exist, but the Department of Justice reports that the state of Florida grants approximately 5,000 requests annually to try juvenile offenders in adult court. The state of Florida is not alone in its harsh treatment of young criminals. Over the past decade, 47 states have amended their laws to make it easier to put on trial and punish juveniles as adults. In fact, U.S. jails house nearly 75,000 juveniles who are awaiting trial in adult correctional facilities. As many as 200,000 juvenile offenders are prosecuted each year as adults in the United States. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that juveniles only be sentenced to life in prison without parole for perpetrating homicide. Juvenile offenders can end up in the adult criminal system under several mechanisms. Transfer and waiver provisions, which are legislated by state law, allow juvenile offenders to be prosecuted in adult courts if they are accused of committing certain crimes. Judicial waiver—the most common of these provisions— allows juvenile court judges the authority to “waive” juvenile court jurisdiction and transfer the case to adult criminal court. Another method, which state prosecutors in Florida used in Brazill’s case, is called a prosecutorial waiver. Under this law, prosecutors have the authority to file cases against juvenile offenders in either juvenile or adult court based on the seriousness of the criminal offense. Such provisions are also known as “direct file,” “concurrent jurisdiction,” or “prosecutorial discretion.” Today, 29 states automatically exclude certain crimes (ranging from drug offenses to violent crimes) from juvenile court jurisdiction. Thirty-five states have legal provisions best summarized as “once an adult, always an adult,” which mandate that once a juvenile offender has been convicted in adult court, all

Brewer, Michael

subsequent offenses, regardless of their severity, will handled through the adult criminal court system. On May 16, 2001, after 14 hours of deliberations, a West Palm Beach jury convicted Brazill, who was 14 years old at the time, of second-degree murder and aggravated assault. Had he been convicted of the original charge of first-degree murder sought by prosecutors, Brazill would have received a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Instead, he received a 28-year prison sentence and will not be released until his 41st birthday in 2028. On July 28, 2008, his mother died of breast cancer. His father, Nathaniel Sr., has broken off all contact with his son Tony Gaskew Further Reading Campaign for Youth Justice. (2007). Jailing juveniles: The dangers of incarcerating youth in adult jails in America. Retrieved from http://www.campaign foryouthjustice.org//Downloads/NationalReportsArticles/CFYJ-Jailing _Juveniles_Report_2007-11-15.pdf Coalition of Justice Annual Report. (2005). Childhood on trial: The failure of trying and sentencing youth in adult court. Retrieved from http://www .juvjustice.org/media/fckeditor/Coalition%20for%20Juvenile%20Justice% 202005%20Annual%20Report%20Childhood%20o n%20Trial.pdf The Disaster Center. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ uscrime.htm Moffatt, G. (2002). Violent heart: Understanding aggressive individuals. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Rochie, T. (2001, July 27). Nate Brazill sentenced to grow up in prison. Time.com. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,169246,00 .html

Brewer, Michael On October 12, 2009, a group of teenaged classmates of Michael Brewer, 15, viciously attacked him, dousing him with rubbing alcohol and setting his body ablaze. Brewer suffered second- and third-degree burns over two-thirds of his body. He survived the attack by jumping into a nearby swimming pool. His screams were captured on a 911 tape. All of the boys attended Deerfield Beach Middle School in Deerfield Beach, Florida. Initially, doctors proclaimed that it would be amazing if Brewer ever emerged from a medically induced coma. For a long time, he was unable to speak and had to use a ventilator to breathe. Miraculously, he was out of the hospital and headed back to school—albeit a different one—just six months after the attack.

67

68

Brewer, Michael

The attack came after Brewer had called 911 to report that one of the boys, Matthew Bent, 15, had tried to steal a $500 bicycle. Allegedly, Bent had given Brewer a $40 video game and wanted him to pay for it. Brewer did not pay. Police claim the boys called Brewer “a snitch.” Reportedly, Jesus Mendez, age 16, actually set Brewer on fire with a lighter. Denver and Jeremy Jarvis were once friends with Brewer; Denver Jarvis is alleged to have thrown the rubbing alcohol on Brewer. He, Bent, and Mendez have been charged with attempted second-degree murder. All have pleaded not guilty. Jeremy Jarvis, age 13, and Steven Shelton, age 16, are accused of being in the group that surrounded Brewer during the attack at the Limetree Village Apartment Complex. Jeremy Jarvis has expressed remorse for the incident, claiming that it was unplanned and that Brewer was actually a good friend. Brewer spoke out publicly in April 2010, expressing his eagerness to return to school, but not to Deerfield Beach Middle School, which he called “terrible.” While Brewer was still recovering, a classmate, Josie Lou Ratley, was attacked by 15-year-old classmate Wayne Treacey, allegedly over some text messages the two had exchanged. Brewer had visited Ratley in the hospital, encouraging her to think positively so that she, too, could recover. He has scars from the burns but said he is not in pain. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Celizic, M. (2010, April 20). Florida teen set on fire: “This school is terrible.” MSNBC. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/ 36661414/ns/today-today_people/ Miller, C. (2010, April 21). Michael Brewer, boy set on fire, tells happy back-toschool story. Crimesider. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from http://www.cbsnews .com/8301-504083_162-20002968-504083.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm _medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CBSNew sHannahsBlog+(Hannah’s +Blog%3A+CBSNews.com) Netter, S., & Clarke, S. (2009, November 25). Michael Brewer talks to police for first time after burn attack; suspect’s brother expresses sympathy. Good Morning America. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from http://abcnews.go.com/ GMA/michael-brewer-talks-police-burn- attack/story?id=9167108&page=1 Olmeda, R. (2009, November 4). Jarvis family apologizes for fiery attack against Deerfield Beach teen. South Florida Sun Sentinel. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from http://www.sun- sentinel.com/news/broward/deerfield/fl-burn-suspect -jarvis-parents- bn110409,0,1968462.story Olmeda, R. (2009, November 25). Jeremy Jarvis says attack on Brewer not planned. Palm Beach Post. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from http://www.palmbeachpost.com/ news/crime/jeremy-jarvis-says- attack-on-michael-brewer-not-84576.html

Bullycide

Phillips, R. (2009, November 3). Set afire, teen now struggles for survival. CNN. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/02/ teen.burned.recovery/index.html

Bullycide In 2009, the National Center for Education Statistics reported that almost one in three students between the ages of 13 and 18 had been bullied in school. A survey by the Cyberbullying Research Center found that one in five students ages 10 to 18 had been the victim of cyberbullying, or bullying that occurs through some form of technology such as email, instant messaging, text messages, and social networking sites. Particularly vulnerable are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) students. A 2009 report by the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network

College students attend a candlelight vigil at Rutgers University in memory of freshman Tyler Clementi on October 3, 2010. Clementi committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge after suffering from bullying by two of his classmates. Bullying prevention programs hope to intervene to help victims see that suicide is not the only way out. (AP/Wide World Photos)

69

70

Bullycide

(GLSEN) found that 90% of LGBT students had experienced harassment at school in the previous year. Students who have been bullied suffer numerous detrimental consequences. They are more likely to skip school and are at greater risk for dropping out. Victims are more likely to be depressed, to use drugs and alcohol, and to engage in violent behavior later in life. Many victims contemplate suicide. In the most severe cases, victims actually take their own lives—a form of suicide called bullycide. One of the first cases to receive national attention was that of Ryan Halligan of Essex Junction, Vermont. Halligan committed suicide on October 7, 2003, at age 13 after middle school classmates threatened, taunted, and insulted him, both in person and online. On June 29, 2005, Jeffery Johnston of Cape Coral, Florida, committed suicide. Johnston had also been bullied in school and online. On October 9, 2006, 17-year-old Rachael Neblett of Washington, Kentucky, took her own life after being threatened with violence over the Internet. Just eight days later, 13-year-old Megan Meier hung herself after receiving a series of cruel messages on MySpace. A neighbor and the mother of Meier’s classmate was later indicted for her role in the bullying. On August 23, 3008, Alexa Berman, 14, of Brooklyn, Connecticut, hung herself three days before she was to have started high school. On July 3, 2008, Jessie Logan hung herself in her bedroom after her ex-boyfriend sent nude pictures of her to other students at her high school in Cincinnati. In a similar case in September 2009, 13-year-old Hope Witsell of Ruskin, Florida, hung herself after photos of herself topless that she had sent to a boy she liked were distributed to a far wider audience. In October 2009, Tyler Lee Long, who had Asperger’s syndrome, hung himself after having endured years of torment at school, much of it before the indifferent eyes of administrators. Bullycide received a great deal of attention in 2010 due to a spate of wellpublicized incidents. On January 14, 2010, 15-year-old Phoebe Prince hung herself after being bullied by classmates in South Hadley, Massachusetts. Nine students were indicted in the case. In September 2010, three teens committed suicide after suffering severe bullying: 15-year-old Billy Lucas of Indiana, 13-year old Asher Brown of Texas, and 13-year-old of California either identified as gay or were perceived to be gay. Tyler Clementi, age 18, a Rutgers University freshman, jumped off the George Washington Bridge in New York after his roommate secretly recorded him with another male student, then broadcast the video online. In October 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama spoke out about bullycides, as did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. A multifaceted approach is needed to reduce bullying and to prevent bullycide. Schools must put in place, and enforce, anti-bullying policies. These policies must be inclusive of the variety of forms bullying takes, and should include services for

Bullycide

victims as well as training for educators, parents, and students. Bullying often requires the intervention of adults, but because incidents usually occur in front of witnesses, students must be motivated to speak out when they see such events. Additionally, schools must work to create positive climates in which all students feel valued, have a voice, and are empowered to step up when they see or hear someone being mistreated. Both inside of schools and in the broader culture, experts recommend addressing the continuum of masculinity and femininity. The majority of bullying victims are harassed because they look or act in ways that diverge from traditional notions of masculine or feminine. With greater sensitivity to the many unique humans who constitute society, bullying and other forms of harassment and mistreatment can be reduced. Radio talk show host Dan Savage, joined by many politicians and celebrities, began the It Gets Better Project to help LGBT students see a positive future for themselves. Celebrities filmed a series of short videos discussing life as gay adults and described how to obtain help if needed. Information and videos are available at http://www.itgetsbetterproject.com/. Visitors to the site are encouraged to take a pledge to treat everyone with respect and to stand up to bullying and intolerance. Additionally, teaching young children about peace, justice, and human rights can help them build empathy and understanding. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Chen, S. (2010, October 4). After student’s death, a weeklong look into bullying. CNN. Retrieved October 28, 2010, from http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/ 10/04/bullying.special.explainer/index.html?iref=allsearch Coloroso, B. (2009). The bully, the bullied, and the bystander: From preschool to high school—how parents and teachers can help break the cycle. New York: Harper. High, B. (2007). Bullycide in America: Moms speak out about the bullying/suicide connection. Darlington, MD: JBS Publishing. This book is an electronic book available at http://www.bullycide.org/ Ollove, M. (2010, April 28). Bullying and teen suicide: How do we adjust school climate? Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved October 28, 2010, from http:// www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0428/Bullying-and-teen-suicide-How -do-we- adjust-school-climate Powers, R. (2010, October 22). Obama “shocked and saddened” by gay bullying suicides. MSNBC. Retrieved October 27, 2010, from http://www.msnbc .msn.com/id/39800008/ns/us_news-life/ Simmons, R. (2010, October 5). Responding to the bullycides: How we can stand up and honor their memories. Huffington Post. Retrieved October 28, 2010, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-simmons/responding-to-the -bullyci_b_747806.html

71

72

Bullying, College

Bullying, College Bullying is the deliberate and repeated affliction of harm by one individual on another of less physical or social power. The harm often takes place over an extended period of time and can be inflicted physically, verbally, or emotionally. The victim of bullying is known as the target, while the perpetrator is called the bully. While bullying is often associated with early and middle adolescence, bullying may persist into college and the workplace. At colleges and universities, bullying usually occurs either between two students, between a student and a teacher, or between two teachers. More than 60% of college students report having witnessed a peer being bullied by another student, and more than 45% report having seen a student being bullied by a teacher. The three major forms of bullying are physical bullying, verbal bullying, and emotional bullying. Physical bullying is an example of direct bullying, or bullying that outwardly harms the victim. Among college students, physical bullying most often involves shoving, paddling, and other forms of painful physical contact. Physical bullying is relatively common among college men, most often occurs in residence halls or other living quarters, and can be a component of hazing and initiations. Verbal and emotional bullying are forms of indirect bullying, or bullying that does not visibly harm the victim and for which the effects are implicit and delayed. Common examples of verbal bullying among college students include name calling, making threatening remarks, verbal intimidation, use of sexist or homophobic language, gossiping, and other speech acts that cause fear or discomfort. Deliberate attempts to incite fear, intimidation or emotional distress are forms of emotional bullying. Emotional bullying can include intentional social isolation, exclusion from social groups and organizations, and defacing or stealing property. Emotional bullying is often carried out electronically. Electronic bullying, also known as cyberbullying, among college students often relies on college-oriented social networking Internet sites, such as www.facebook.com, or on increasingly popular college gossip websites, such as www.juicycampus.com. A cyberbully might publicly share gossip or embarrassing information about another individual, post unflattering pictures or mean comments about the victim, or intentionally exclude others from web-based groups. Unwelcome and harassing emails, instant messages and text messages are other examples of cyberbullying. Colleges and universities rarely collect bullying statistics. Postsecondary institutions are not required to report incidents of bullying, and no federal agency in the United States compiles data on such occurrences. Several nonrepresentative surveys measuring the frequency of college bullying have been administered, however. Nearly 25% of survey participants reported having been bullied by another student, 19%percent reported having been bullied by a teacher, and 18%

Bullying, College

revealed that they had bullied others. There is a strong association between being bullied in high school and being bullied in college. Likewise, there is a strong association between being a bully in high school and being a bully in college. Hazing is a ritualistic method of initiating a person into a group or organization, often involving harassment, physical abuse, humiliation, or other forms of bullying characterized by an imbalance of power between the target and the initiator. In many cases, existing members of an organization possess power over potential members, who must submit to bullying to gain membership. Hazing rituals may include direct bullying, such as paddling or beating, and/or indirect bullying, such as the performance of degrading and embarrassing tasks. Fraternities, sororities, and athletic teams are examples of college organizations that often engage in hazing. Sexual harassment, or all forms of unsolicited sexual attention, is a commonplace form of bullying among college students. Sexual harassment can be both direct, such as grabbing or groping of breasts or genitalia, and indirect, such as comments about body parts or the use of sexist or homophobic language. Sexual harassment or sexual violence that occurs within the context of a romantic relationship between students is called youth dating violence. Bullying incidents based on race, ethnicity, color, sex, real or perceived gender identity, real or perceived sexual orientation, native language, national origin, religion, social class or disability are examples of bias-based bullying. Sexual minority students, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered students, and students from underrepresented racial groups are more likely to report being the victims of biased-based bullying on college campuses than are their peers. Teacher bullying occurs when a teacher takes advantage of his or her position of authority and subjects a student to repeated public ridicule, degradation, or suggestions of incapability. Teacher bullying is often indirect, and the victim is generally powerless given that the teacher ultimately evaluates the victim’s performance in the class. Teacher bullying—particularly bullying based on ideological differences between the student and the teacher—is being reported with increasing frequency at the university level. Bullying by tenured professors toward untenured assistant professors has also been reported. Chistopher J. Stapel Further Reading Chapell, M., Casey, D., De la Cruz, C., Ferrell, J., Forman, J., Lipkin, R., et al. (2004). Bullying in college by students and teachers. Adolescence, 39(153), 54–64. Chapell, M. S., Hasselman, S. L., Kitchin, T., Lomon, S. F., MacIver, K. W., & Sarullo, P. L. (2006). Bullying in elementary school, high school, and college. Adolescence, 41(164), 633–648.

73

74

Bullying, High School

Olweus, D. (2004). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Bullying, High School A Norwegian researcher named Dan Olweus published the first study on bullying, Aggression in the Schools: Bullies and Whipping Boys, in 1978. In it, he established the most widely used definition for bullying. Olweus defines bullying as follows: A student is being bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other students . . . it is a negative action when someone intentionally inflicts, or attempts to inflict, injury or discomfort on another . . . Negative actions can be carried out by words (verbally), for instance, by threatening, taunting, teasing, and calling names. It is a negative action when somebody hits, pushes, kicks, pinches or restrains another—by physical contact. It is also possible to carry out negative actions without the use of words or physical contact, such as by making faces or dirty gestures, intentionally excluding someone from a group, or refusing to comply with another person’s wishes. (1993, p. 9) In addition to this basic definition of bullying, researchers who focus their work on secondary schools have identified sexual harassment as a form of bullying. Most recently, bullying behaviors that happen electronically, also known as cyberbullying, have also emerged as prevalent in the lives of many secondary school students. Bullying has been identified as an international problem. During the years 2001 and 2002, the World Health Organization conducted a comparative study on rates of bullying in Europe and North America among 13-year-olds. The countries with the highest numbers of students who reported engaging in bullying behaviors (two or more times in the past month) were Lithuania (43.6% boys, 29.5% girls), Germany (26.2% boys, 15.8% girls), and Austria (25.7% boys, 14.5% girls). Canada (17.8% boys, 11.6% girls) and the United States (17.9% boys, 11.5 % girls) were in the middle of the pack and ranked 10th and 11th respectively. The countries with the lowest rates were Malta (5.6% boys, 4.2% girls), Czech Republic (5.5% boys, 2.6% girls), and Sweden (5.1% boys, 2.3% girls). The average percentages of all students who reported engaging in bullying in the 35 participating countries were 16.4% of boys and 8.4% of girls. Researchers have identified a large number of negative effects associated with being the victim of bullying. Students who are victims of bullying often report

Bullying, High School

symptoms of anxiety, depression, stress, hopelessness, and low self-esteem, and are more likely to skip school, have lower grades, and attempt self-harming behaviors and suicide. Much bullying research focuses on easily observable physical behaviors that tend to be more common among boys. Authors such as Rachel Simmons and Lyn Mikel Brown provide a more in-depth look at the types of covert and relational bullying that happens in girls’ social groups; such bullying is quite difficult for researchers to observe and measure but clearly has lasting harmful impacts on the well-being of girls. Neil Duncan has contributed much to this area with his research on “sexual bullying.” Duncan has investigated the sexualized element of much of the bullying that goes on in secondary schools. His later works focuses on bullying between girls, including accusations of being a lesbian or heterosexual promiscuity. Sexual harassment is related to bullying but has some unique factors that distinguish it from other forms of bullying. It is defined as unwanted behaviors that are sexual in nature that have negative effects on the target or the environment. In one study that examined students’ understandings of bullying and sexual harassment, researchers reported that students see sexual harassment as physical contact from a boy to a girl. Nevertheless, much sexual harassment is not physical in nature. As with bullying, it can also take verbal, electronic, and nonverbal forms (e.g., gestures, leers, social exclusion). Gruber and Fineran recently examined the prevalence and impacts of bullying and sexual harassment behaviors and found that more students experienced bullying (52%) than sexual harassment (34%) and that boys and girls experienced similar levels of both bullying (53% versus 51%) and harassment (36% versus 34%). Where they did find a difference was in students who identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning their sexual orientation (GLBQ). According to Gruber and Fineran, GLBQ students experienced more bullying (79% versus 50%) and more sexual harassment (71% versus 32%) than non-GLBQ identified students. The same study also examined the effects of bullying and sexual harassment on the health of students. Gruber and Fineran found that girls and GLBQ students generally have poorer health (self-esteem, mental and physical health, and trauma symptoms) during middle and high school. They concluded that sexual harassment has a more severe impact than bullying on a student’s overall health and that schools need to include sexual harassment interventions as a distinct focus in addition to bullying reduction programs. As noted previously, sexual orientation harassment is a prevalent form of bullying in schools. The earliest published report that began documenting incidents of bullying related to sexual orientation in schools was conducted by the American Association of University Women in 1993. This study addressed issues of sexual harassment in schools, an area that overlaps with much bullying behavior. The

75

76

Bullying, High School

1993 study included a question that asked whether participants had ever been called gay or lesbian in school. When this study was followed up eight years later (2001), researchers found that the one behavior that had increased since the previous study was calling another student gay or lesbian. Boys reported such behavior occurred twice as often, and girls three times as often, as it had a decade earlier, whereas most other forms of harassment had remained constant or decreased. In research conducted by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), 64% of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (GLBT) students reported being verbally bullied at school. In addition, 83% reported that faculty or staff rarely or never intervened when they were present at a time when homophobic remarks were made. A study conducted in California reported the frequency and effects of harassment for gender nonconformity by identifying students who were targeted for being “not as masculine as other boys” or “not as feminine as other girls.” This study found that harassment for gender nonconformity was generally related to either actual or perceived sexual orientation: 49% of students who were harassed for their sexual orientation were also harassed for gender nonconformity, whereas 27% of the overall student population reported experiencing harassed for “not being masculine enough” or “not being feminine enough.” The most encouraging finding was that in situations where students saw teachers stop negative comments and slurs based on sexual orientation, they reported less name calling and stronger feelings of school safety. These findings demonstrate how effective intervention can alter the experiences of students in schools. Cyberbullying is defined as “using an electronic medium, such as emails or text messages, to threaten or harm others” (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006, p. 27). Much research has shown strong links between bullying at school and cyberbullying. One online survey in 2008 found that students who were bullies or victims at school were more likely to be involved in cyberbullying as well. In a Canadian study reported in 2006, researchers also found similarities between cyberbullying and schoolyard bullying: Males (22%) were more likely to be cyberbullies than females (12%), and males and females reported being victimized online at similar rates (25% versus25.6%). Cyberbullying is a very difficult phenomenon for educators to address because much of it occurs outside school, yet it has a clear impact on students’ experiences at school. This practice differs somewhat from schoolyard bullying in that it can be anonymous and can have broader impacts owing to the widespread dissemination of information through broadcast text messages, posted videos, and webpages. Conversely, these same elements can make cyberbullying easier to prove by documenting the exact nature of the interaction. Researchers have noted that cyberspace is becoming an increasingly hostile environment, particularly for girls and GLBT youth who are targets for harassment online. According to GLSEN’s research, 41% of LGBT students had experienced

Bullying, High School

this type of harassment in the past year. This percentage is four times higher than the national average of 9% reported in a recent large-scale study conducted at the University of New Hampshire. It reflects the higher victimization of GLBT youth in school reported by other studies. The emergence of new virtual spaces such as discussion boards, blogs, instant messaging programs, and social networking sites such as Friendster, Facebook, and MySpace have created new arenas in which youth can interact—and can bully and harass. The increasing accessibility of these spaces from Internet-connected laptops, personal data assistants (PDAs), portable gaming devices, and cell phones simply multiplies the potential contact points for bullying and harassment. Nevertheless, this factor does not necessarily mean that such bullying falls outside the realm of educators’ interventions. The visibility and public forum of Internet interactions can actually provide evidence for investigations as well as a place where teachers and parents can offer support and guidance. This form of online interaction is an important one for educators and researchers to address, as youth behaviors spill out of the schoolyard and into cyberspace. Elizabeth J. Meyer Further Reading Brown, L. M. (2003). Girlfighting: Betrayal and rejection among girls. New York: New York University Press. California Safe Schools Coalition. (2004). Consequences of harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender non-conformity and steps for making schools safer. Davis, CA: University of California. Duncan, N. (1999). Sexual bullying: Gender conflict and pupil culture in secondary schools. London: Routledge. Gruber, J. E., & Fineran, S. (2008). Comparing the impact of bullying and sexual harassment victimization on the mental and physical health of adolescents. Sex Roles, 59, 1–13. Harris & Associates. (1993). Hostile hallways: The AAUW survey on sexual harassment in America’s schools. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women. Harris Interactive. (2001). Hostile hallways: Bullying, teasing, and sexual harassment in school. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2), 129–156. Kosciw, J., & Diaz, E. (2006). The 2005 national school climate survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

77

78

Bullying Laws

Land, D. (2003). Teasing apart secondary students’ conceptualizations of peer teasing, bullying and sexual harassment School Psychology International, 24(2), 147–165. Li, Q. (2006). Cyberbullying in schools: A research of gender differences. School Psychology International, 27(2), 157–170. Meyer, E. (2009). Gender, bullying, and harassment: Strategies to end sexism and homophobia in schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Simmons, R. (2002). Odd girl out: The hidden culture of aggression in girls. New York: Harcourt. Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Online victimization of youth: Five years later. Durham, NH: Crimes Against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire. World Health Organization. (2004). Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study: international report from the 2001/2002 survey. Copenhagen, Denmark: Author.

Bullying Laws As more attention has been focused on school-based bullying, states have moved to enact appropriate legislation that penalizes students who bully and provides assistance to those who have been victimized. By 2003, at least 15 states had passed some type of school anti-bullying law. Some laws also include prevention programming, although precisely what this covers and who is included vary. In July 2009, students involved with the organization Students Against Violence Everywhere (SAVE) testified before U.S. House of Representatives subcommittees on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, and Healthy Families and Communities, lobbying for a federal zero-tolerance law for bullying. Democratic Representative Linda Sanchez has sponsored the Safe Kids agenda, which includes several bills related to bullying. She would also like to see federal funds devoted to the creation of anti-harassment groups in schools. According to Bully Police, a self-proclaimed “watchdog organization,” effective anti-bullying laws include 12 essential elements: 1. The word “bully” is used in the text of the bill, law, policy, or statute. 2. The law must clearly prohibit bullying, not address general school safety.

Bullying Laws

3. Bullying and harassment must be explicitly defined, but there should be no emphasis on delineating who is a victim, as anyone can be the victim of a bully. 4. The legislation should include recommendations on how to make model school policy. 5. All key stakeholders are involved in its creation, including educators at various levels, guidance counselors, administrators, parents, and students. 6. A good law mandates—not just suggests—anti-bullying programs. 7. A timeline is stated for when school policies are required and when they are to be implemented. 8. Legislation must include protection against reprisal, retaliation, or false accusations. 9. Schools must be protected from lawsuits if they have a good policy and follow it. 10. Provisions for counseling for victims should be included. 11. Schools must submit accountability reports and face consequences if they do not implement or follow through with their policy. 12. Cyberbullying must be addressed. Based on these criteria, the Bully Police assigns letter grades to states in regard to their bullying laws. All states that have no law automatically receive an “F” grade for failing. “D” grades are assigned to states with very poor laws, “C” grades to those with mediocre laws, “B” grades to states with acceptable laws, and “A” grades to those with “near perfect” laws. Delaware, Florida, and Kentucky were recently assigned “A++” grades because their laws both include cyberbullying and provide for counseling for victims. In Florida, Debbie Johnston pushed for the law, formally called the Jeffrey Johnston Stand Up for All Students Act, after her son, Jeffrey, committed suicide after enduring two years of bullying at school and on the Internet. Another one of the major architects of the Florida law, David Tirella, helped a family win a $4 million verdict against a Tampa area school district that failed to provide adequate protection for a victim of bullying, even after it had been reported to the school principal. As of August 2008, laws in nine states (California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont) plus Washington, D.C., prohibited bullying and harassment in schools based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The laws of 25 states do not specifically list protected categories (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New

79

80

Bullying Laws

Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia). Oregon, Minnesota, and Illinois are listed twice because, although their anti-bullying statutes do not specifically list protected groups, these groups are covered by the state antidiscrimination laws that cover educational institutions. Some critics maintain that bullying laws do not work, noting that the United States has spent a lot of money since the 1999 Columbine shooting on ineffective programs and policies. For instance, the website Bullies2buddies argues that antibullying legislation tries to legislate morality, which is impossible. Most, however, believe that legislation is one strategy that may assist in preventing bullying and school violence. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Barack, L. (2009, July 20). Congress taking new anti-bulling laws seriously. School Library Journal. Retrieved August 16, 2009, from http://www .schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6670289.html Chang, J., Owens, L., & Brady, J. (2008, May 2). Mom’s campaign for Florida anti-bully law finally pays off. ABC News. Retrieved August 15, 2009 from http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4774894&page=1 High, B. (n.d.). Making the grade. Bully Police. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://www.bullypolice.org/grade.html State by state: Anti-bullying laws in the U.S. (2008, August). Family Equality Council. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://www.familyequality.org/ resources/publications/anti-bullying_withcitations.pdf State laws related to bullying among children and youth. (n.d/). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http:// stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/HHS_PSA/pdfs/SBN_Tip_6.pdf Why anti-bullying laws are doomed to fail. (2005, November). Bullies2Buddies. Retrieved August 16, 2009, from http://www.bullies2buddies.com/Why-AntiBullying-Laws-Are-Doomed-to-Fail

C Canada and School Crime and Violence Toronto, Calgary, Ottawa, Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Victoria, Edmonton, Bowmanville, Brampton, Scarborough, Tabor, and Etobicoke—what do all these places have in common? They have all been the sites of newsworthy incidents of school violence. Tabor, 1999: a former student entered a school and shot two students; one died. Toronto, 2003: a student was wounded by gunshot fire outside a school for alternate studies. Toronto, 2004: one student stabbed another to death at a restaurant during their school lunch break. In an unrelated domestic incident six days later, a teacher was shot in the head in a school parking lot. Bowmanville, 2006: a student opened fire in a school with a pellet gun. Toronto, 2007: a boy was shot to death in a high school. And so it goes: Winnipeg, Etobicoke, Scarborough, Calgary—knives and baseball bats, pellet guns, injuries, and sometimes death. Perhaps the title of an academic publication says it best: “School Violence: Not Just in the U.S.” For many years, the Canadian attitude seemed to be that violence and school crime were the products of U.S. culture, and hardly to be found in that country’s neighbor to the north. But by the mid-1990s, Canadians were seeing a noticeable uptick in school violence. In fact, one research article, stating that risks for physical aggression were higher for U.S. students than for Canadian students, was careful to point out that the “magnitude of the differences was modest” and that “rates of aggression” were quite similar between the two countries. Other survey results indicated that more than 90% of Canadian adults found school violence to be a major concern. It is fair to say that school violence has now become more of an issue in Canada than it was before.

81

82

Canada and School Crime and Violence

One study indicated that 46% of Canada’s 16- and 17-year-old children were the victims of harassment, verbal aggression, threats, and physical assault at school. Other types of violence found in Canadian schools include violence and verbal abuse against teachers, gang violence, sexual assault and harassment, shootings, stabbings, assault with baseball bats, and, of course, bullying. A 2002 study reported the frequency of bullying among grade-school children in Calgary, Alberta to be higher than rates found in earlier studies. The research indicated that 27% of students were the victims of both physical and verbal bullying, and 21% and 5%, respectively, were the victims of just verbal bullying or just physical bullying. An earlier study of small-town violent behavior indicated that more than two-thirds of seventh to 12th graders reported being verbally put down or bullied at school. Bullying can also lead to other types of violence, such as suicide among schoolaged children. A 14-year-old girl in Mission, British Columbia (2000), and a 14-year-old boy in Halifax (2002), both of whom committed suicide, left notes alluding to horrendous bullying at the hands of their schoolmates. Although many believe that violence has escalated in Canadian schools over the years, some debate continues over this issue. One study of self-reported incidents indicated that the number of assaults increased from 1985 to 1999, but then declined in 2001. This study does not specify how many of the assaults occurred in school, although the authors do speculate that part of the decrease could be due to passage of Ontario’s Safe School Act in 2000. Regardless of Whether or not violence has actually escalated in the schools, there certainly is a strong perception that it is getting worse. In a survey of school students, aged 14 to 18 years old, in British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario, more than one-third believed that violence had increased in the schools over the previous five years. (Slightly more than 40% believed the rates were the same, and less than one-fourth believed violence had decreased.) The same study looked at the types of violence reported by students. While the most common incidents involved seemingly less serious behavior, such as arguments, name calling, and so forth, other more serious behavior was also reported, albeit at a lower rate. These less frequent but more serious behaviors included fighting and being beaten up, bullying, assaults, physical threats, sexual harassment, and inappropriate touching. Some instances involved as many as six participants. It should be noted that long-term persistent verbal abuse, although categorized as seemingly “less serious,” can be quite devastating and detrimental to the victim over a long period of time. In a cross-national study focusing on the relationship between drug and alcohol use and violence in the United States and Canada, U.S. and Canadian researchers observed that the difference in arrest rates for violent juvenile crime in the two countries has been narrowing in recent years. While U.S. arrest rates for these crimes remain much higher than Canadian rates, Canadian rates have been

Canada and School Crime and Violence

increasing at a much faster rate over a somewhat similar period of time. In Canada, arrest rates for armed robbery (among juveniles) increased 267% during a six-year period, while U.S. arrest rates for juvenile robbery increased by 57% over a nineyear period. In the United States. juvenile arrest rates for aggravated assault rose 70% over the same period, while Canadian serious juvenile assault rates rose 90%. Previously cannabis use was slightly lower in Canada than in the United States, but now the reverse is true. Moreover, the use of drugs appeared to be more closely tied to violence in the Canadian sample than in the U.S. sample. While violent crime among juveniles in the United States has decreased dramatically since 1995, the reverse seems to be the case in Canada, at least as measured by arrest rates. Another study indicated “remarkably similar rates of physical aggression” among students in Canada and in the United States. Based on their own data, Canadian researchers observed that Canadian self-reported rates of violence against juveniles greatly exceeded those identified in governmental statistics. More than half of children reported being violently victimized or being the target of unsuccessful victimization during the course of their lifetime. There was a greater likelihood of teenagers being victimized at school than anywhere else. In fact, more than 80% of students said they had been victimized at school one or more times in the previous year; the highest percentage of victimizations were for theft, but more than 42% reported being threatened at school. More than half (56%) of the self-reporters admitted participation in delinquent behavior in the previous year. In fact, more than 45% admitted to participating in some violent activity, such as threatening, punching, kicking, or slapping. Additionally, 28% of self-reporters admitted to having a weapon (knives, bats, clubs, pellet guns, a very small number of guns, and other weapons) in school during the past year. Almost half of those students with weapons at school reported a significant level of victimization (in which they were the victim) while at school. Among those who had weapons at school, close to 59% reported a fairly high level of delinquency as well. Violence, of course, is not the only type of crime found in the schools. In a study of small-town Canadian students, almost 70% were the victims of theft while at school, almost 47% were threatened, and more than half had something damaged while at school. In an effort to control school crime, and particularly violence, Canada has implemented a number of measures intended to cut down on the number of incidents. For example, in 2000, Ontario passed the Safe Schools Act. The government implemented safety audits throughout the schools to raise awareness, determine safety and security needs, and initiate various remedies. The Safe Schools Act gave rise to a code of conduct and led to the introduction of a list of unacceptable behaviors that would lead to mandatory expulsion or suspension. A partial list of these behaviors includes threatening serious bodily harm and extensive vandalism (both of which would lead to suspension), as well as weapons possession, causing bodily harm,

83

84

Carneal, Michael

robbery, and sexual assault (all of which would lead to expulsion). Tighter security measures were instituted in many schools, and every public school was required to implement a bullying prevention program. In 2007, a new law, referred to as Anastasia’s Law (in memory of a student killed in a shootout at Dawson College), was passed. Among other things, it banned firearms in schools, colleges, and daycare facilities, and on school buses in Quebec. The law went into effect in September 2008. There is one area in which Canada and the United States are very similar: Laws dealing with juvenile offenders have become increasingly harsh and punitive. Canada has also followed the lead of the United States in its implementation of zero-tolerance policies in the schools. Zero tolerance is a philosophy that allows no discretion in dealing with certain types of school misbehavior; in fact, under zero-tolerance policies, suspension and expulsion are the only options for dealing with certain behaviors. Unfortunately, this approach can be used quite inappropriately, as in the cases of the young student who was suspended for bring a squirt gun to school for use in a skit and the 12-year-old student who was suspended for pushing her friend into a snow bank. While there is some disagreement over whether school crime and violence are increasing in Canada, it is certainly true that there is a perception of higher levels of school violence. It is clear that this problem warrants further research and additional remedies. Carol Lenhart Further Reading Akiba, M., LeTendre, G., Baker, D., & Goseling, B. (2002). Student victimization: National and school system effects on school violence in 37 nations. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 829–853. Barwick, M. (2009, April 20). School violence: What you should know, what you can do. CBC News. Retrieved April 27, 2010, from http://www.cbc.ca/health/ story/2009/04/20/f-barwick-school- violence.html Canadian Safe School Network: http://www.canadiansafeschools.com/home.htm Carter, S., & Stewin, L. (1999). School violence in the Canadian context: An overview and model for intervention. International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 21(4), 267–277.

Carneal, Michael Michael Carneal, one of the more infamous school shooters in U.S. history, committed a mass shooting at a high school in West Paducah, Kentucky, in 1997. On the morning of December 1, Carneal, then a 14-year-old high school freshman at

Carneal, Michael

Heath High School, killed three of his fellow classmates and injured five others in a deadly shooting spree. The victims had all been holding hands in a Christian prayer circle that was a regular event for some students at the school. Carneal rode to school in a car driven by his sister and entered Heath High School before classes started, at around 7:45 A.M. He was carrying two shotguns and two rifles wrapped in a large blanket. Carneal also carried a .22-caliber semi-automatic handgun in his backpack. He told several people that the blanket was protecting an art project or theatrical prop he was working on. After making his way into a lobby area where he and fellow Christian students regularly gathered to pray together, Carneal reportedly placed a pair of earplugs in his ears and pulled the handgun from his book bag. He opened fire on students in the prayer circle with the handgun. Carneal fired a total of 11 rounds, killing three girls and injuring three other girls and two boys. One of the five survivors was left paralyzed from the waist down. She has since visited Carneal in prison and given numerous interviews and speeches about school violence and her traumatic experience during and after the incident. Initial reports indicated that Carneal stopped firing only when he was tackled or confronted by a fellow student. However, it was later reported that Carneal stopped firing on his own. Carneal knew all of his victims and was friends with several of them. When he stopped shooting, he reportedly placed his pistol on the floor and surrendered to the school principal, Bill Bond. Witnesses said he told student Ben Strong, “Kill me, please. I can’t believe I did that.” The West Paducah episode followed the mass school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi, by only two months and contributed to the widespread perception that the United States was in the midst of an epidemic of school violence. Some investigators suspected that other students were in on the plot but backed out of the conspiracy at the last minute. They pointed to the presence of the four long guns wrapped in Carneal’s blanket and to the fact that Carneal never used these weapons in his shooting spree. Some suggested that the rifles and shotguns were intended for use by friends of Carneal, who declined to pick them up during Carneal’s attack. Intensive questioning of Carneal and his friends and acquaintances, however, led investigators to abandon this theory. Fellow students reported that Carneal liked to wear black clothing and was thought by some classmates to be a Satanist. Several students came forward after the shooting and reported that Carneal had previously threatened to “shoot up” the school, but noted that they had not taken the threats seriously. Most of Carneal’s teachers and fellow students regarded him as typical and well adjusted. He played in the high school band, and his grades were above average. He had never experienced any major disciplinary problems or been arrested. Carneal’s father was a respected attorney in the Paducah area.

85

86

Carneal, Michael

Carneal’s precise motivations are unclear, but an investigation revealed that he was frequently bullied and had been subjected to rumors that he was gay. He was slight of build and physically weaker than other students. In the weeks leading up to the December 1997 shooting, Carneal became fascinated with guns. He reportedly stole a .38-caliber handgun belonging to his parents and attempted to sell it. The handgun ended up in the possession of another student who either stole or bought the gun from Carneal with a promise to pay him. Carneal also stole several more firearms from his own home and from the home of a friend. On Thanksgiving Day 1997, Carneal broke into the garage of a friend and took a Ruger .22-caliber pistol, four .22-caliber rifles, a 30-30 hunting rifle, .22-caliber ammunition, 12-gauge shotgun shells, and a set of earplugs. After Carneal was taken into custody, prosecutors announced that they would seek to prosecute him as an adult instead of as a juvenile. Carneal’s legal team emphasized the fragility of their client’s mental health, arguing that he was in the advanced stages of mental illness at the time of the episode. Carneal was examined by several psychologists, including three psychologists retained by the defense team. After several court hearings, a judge pronounced Carneal competent to stand trial as an adult. He ultimately pled no contest, and was sentenced to three concurrent life sentences for the three murders and an additional 120 years in prison for five counts of attempted murder and burglary. The Carneal slayings also led to a 1999 lawsuit by the parents of the three murdered girls. The parents sued a number of video game makers, including Nintendo, Sega, and Sony Computer Entertainment; two Internet pornography websites; and the distributors of the 1995 movie The Basketball Diaries—the claim was that their violent depictions inspired Carneal to commit the mass shooting in 1997. All defendants except Carneal himself were dismissed from the lawsuit after federal courts held that any causal link between the media and Carneal’s attacks was unforeseen and speculative. On August 4, 2000, the trial court rendered a judgment against Carneal in the amount of $42 million. In 2007, when Carneal was 25 years old, he initiated litigation to attempt to reevaluate his sentence. After years of counseling in prison, Carneal claimed he was too mentally ill to plead guilty in 1998. His attorneys argued that new facts had surfaced over the course of Carneal’s prison counseling sessions, indicating that Carneal had been suffering from schizophrenia before, during, and after his shooting spree at Heath High School. Roger I. Roots Further Reading Egan, T. (1998, June 14). Where rampages begin: A special report. From adolescent angst to shooting up schools. New York Times. Retrieved April 25, 2010,

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

from http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/14/us/where-rampages-begin-special -report-adolescent- angst-shooting-up-schools.html Fox, C., Harding, D., Mehta, J., Roth, W., & Newman, K. (2005). Rampage: The social roots of school shootings. New York: Basic. Kimmel, M., & Mahler, M. (2003). Adolescent masculinity, homophobia, and violence: Random school shootings, 1982–2001. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 1439–1458. Moore, M., Petrie, C., Braga, A., & McLaughlin, B. (Eds.). (2003). Deadly lessons: Understanding lethal school violence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides a number of resources relevant to school crime and violence in its Youth Violence section. Each year, CDC contributes data to the Department of Education’s Indicators of School Crime and Safety. In addition, CDC has collaborated with the Departments of Education and Justice since 1992 to monitor school-associated violent deaths. This agency also sponsors the School Health Policies and Programs Study, which is billed as the largest and most comprehensive of its kind. Every two years, CDC administers the Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance System, which measures violent behavior, weapon carrying, dating behavior, sexual violence, and suicide among both private and public school students. In addition to the studies that CDC directly oversees, the organization funds other entities that conduct research relevant to youth and school violence. The University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign conducts the Bullying and Sexual Violence Project. CDC also funds the Student Health and Safety Survey, and has helped create a tool to assess school environments to see how school designs contribute to fear and violence. In regard to prevention, CDC funds 10 Academic Centers of Excellence (ACE) on youth violence. Blueprints for Violence Prevention, which has identified 11 model prevention programs, has also received CDC funding. CDC has publicized Best Practices of Youth Violence Prevention: A Sourcebook for Community Action and is currently collaborating with four universities on a multisite violence prevention project. The agency has developed a school health assessment tool, the School Health Index (SHI), that assists schools in identifying their strengths and weaknesses and developing action plans to increase student health. CDC’s website (www.cdc.gov) offers information about school violence, including an “Understanding School Violence” fact sheet, data on risk and protective factors, evaluation studies, prevention resources, and additional links.

87

88

Central Asia Institute (CAI)

CDC’s Healthy Youth division offers information, resources, and tools relevant to school health and risky behavior on its website (www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/). The Violence Prevention division addresses school violence as well as the related issues of child maltreatment, intimate-partner violence, sexual violence, suicide, and more. Featured projects include Choose Respect, about developing healthy dating relationships, and the Rape Prevention and Education (RPE) program, among others. CDC has also produced television programming, including Break the Silence: Stop the Violence. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Centers for Disease Control: www.cdc.gov Healthy Youth Division: http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/

Central Asia Institute (CAI) Although quality education is far from assured in the United States and other Western countries, virtually all school-aged children can attend a public school. This is not true in all parts of the world. In India, only 83% of school-aged children are enrolled in primary schools. In Nepal, this rate is 70%, and in Pakistan, just 52%. In Pakistan, 42 million children do not attend school. Fortunately, a number of nonprofit organizations are working to build and staff schools in these regions, including the very successful Central Asia Institute (CAI). Central Asia Institute is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization whose mission is to promote and support community-based education, especially for girls, in remote regions of northern Pakistan and Afghanistan. Cofounder and Executive Director Greg Mortenson made a commitment to build a school when he discovered that there was none in the entire town inhabited by the kind and welcoming Balti people whom he met after not-quite summiting K-2, the world’s second tallest mountain. Mortenson returned to the United States and attempted to raise funds to build the school. He sold almost everything he owned and sent letters to as many people as possible to solicit support. His first efforts were to little avail, but he finally found a significant funder in Dr. Jean Hoerni. As Mortenson began planning the first school, he realized that construction would be impossible until a bridge was built over the Braldu River. From 1993 to 1996, Mortsenson worked with the Balti people to erect the bridge and then a school in Korphe village. During that time, he realized the importance of empowering the local people and listening to and learning from them. In 1996, Hoerni established CAI, naming Mortenson the director.

Central Asia Institute (CAI)

The Hushe school in Pakistan is one of more than 100 schools built by the Central Asia Institute to support education for those living in remote areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. (Central Asia Institute)

As of 2009, CAI had established 130 schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan, reaching more than 51,000 students. Projects are selected to benefit some of the world’s most remote areas, where few services are available. CAI schools employ more than 1,200 full or partially supported teachers, and CAI offers teacher training workshops. The organization can build and fully operate a school for $50,000—a remarkable feat. Mortenson and the board of directors of CAI believe that girls and women are the key to ending the violence in these regions of the world. To that end, CAI has also built and funded women’s vocational centers and literacy centers. It has provided training for women’s nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and has established several scholarships for women and girls seeking specialized training. Additionally, CAI has helped provide potable water and sanitation systems in many communities, as well as some basic health care and eye care clinics. The general public in the United States learned about the amazing work of CAI with the 2006 publication of Mortenson’s book about his expeditions, Three Cups of Tea: One Man’s Mission to Promote Peace . . . One School at a Time. The book has also been adapted for young readers (Three Cups of Tea: One Man’s Journey to Change the World . . . One Child at a Time). Listen to the Wind, a children’s book, is told through the voices of Korphe’s children. Mortenson’s most recent

89

90

Choice Theories

publication, released December 1, 2009, is Stones into Schools: Promoting Peace with Books, Not Bombs, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. CAI is funded by many donors and supporters. People all over the world have contributed small amounts that collectively make a big difference. One innovative fundraising method used is called Pennies for Peace (P4P). Groups simply collect their spare change and send it in. More than 3,000 schools, organizations, and individuals have participated in P4P. A guide is available at this program’s website (www .penniesforpeace.org) for educators who wish to teach about the issues addressed here as well as incorporate a P4P service program into their classes. In 2011, a New York Times expose’ exposed inconsistencies in Mortenson’s story about his work. It seems as though he took credit for building schools that were really built by others, and some of the schools he opened were not actually operational. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Central Asia Institute: https://www.ikat.org/ Frontline/World. (n.d.). Extended interview: Mosharraf Zaidi. Retrieved April 24, 2010, http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/pakistan901/zaidi.html Mortenson, G. (2007). Three cups of tea: One man’s mission to promote peace . . . one school at a time. New York: Penguin. Mortenson, G. (2009). Stones into schools: Promoting peace with books, not bombs, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. New York: Viking. Pennies for Peace: www.penniesforpeace.org

Choice Theories Choice theories of crime and violence are based on the assumption that humans can exercise free will and that people make rational decisions. According to this view, delinquents choose to act improperly, just as nondelinquents choose to act properly. These theories suggest that youths choose to behave in certain ways based on personal desires such as revenge, survival, greed, or ethics. Choice theories further assume that based on these desires, youths carefully weigh the costs and benefits (or pleasure and pain) of their actions when making decisions. They assume that most delinquents would not commit crimes if the cost (pain) of such actions were greater than the benefit (pleasure) derived from them. Put another way, criminal behavior becomes more appealing if the rewards outweigh the potential punishments. More than two centuries ago, philosophers Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794) and Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) theorized that people make life choices (including crime) in this way. This general theory of crime is known today as the classical school of criminology.

Choice Theories

The classical school theory states that, to deter or prevent crime, the cost (pain) of the punishment for the crime must outweigh the benefits (pleasure) of the unlawful gain. Classical criminologists further argue that punishments must be swift, sure, and severe. Punishments must be swift, after the person has been proved guilty, to connect in the offender’s mind to the crime and the punishment. Punishments must be sure, so the offender (and society) can both see and learn from the imposed punishment (i.e., crime does not pay). Finally, punishments must be severe, but only severe enough to deter offenders from committing crime; punishments should be more severe for more severe crimes (i.e., let the punishment fit the crime). This classical approach to punishment for crime and violence has been termed “utilitarianism.” The modern counterpart to the classical school of criminology is called “neoclassical” criminology. Under this view, it is assumed that delinquents “choose” crime in a deliberate, rational manner. “Rational choice” theory assumes that delinquents are constantly acquiring and analyzing information, with their “rational” analysis leading them to the conclusion that crime is a lucrative enterprise where the benefits outweigh the risks. An example would be youth gangs selling drugs, where gang members view drugs as illegal but a productive business enterprise. Rational choice theory views both legal and illegal youth behavior as a personal decision, in which the youth evaluates the criminal opportunity, the potential for success, personal values, and the likelihood of getting caught and punished. In 1992, researcher Felix Padilla studied juvenile delinquents—gang members— selling drugs for profit. Padilla observed that gang members acted much like traditional employers; that is, they offered job skills and security to juveniles in the drug trade, rationalizing that membership would help them achieve business success that would be impossible in the “legitimate” business world. The perception by some youths that an economic ladder does not exist in the legitimate business world is a main driver of delinquency in rational choice theory. Indeed, Padilla noted that the best solution to youth crime would likely be the institution of policies that would prompt would-be offenders to choose legitimate career paths over criminal ones. A different take on choice theory was offered by sociologist Jack Katz in his 1988 book, Seductions of Crime. Katz theorized that youth commit crimes and violence because of the “thrill.” According to his argument, delinquents do not need to gain materially from crimes and violence; they must simply get a thrill or rush from them. This theory explains many crimes in which the delinquent does not materially benefit from the act, such as vandalism, graffiti, and the violent defense of meaningless turfs. According to Katz’s theory, committing a crime satisfies a delinquent’s need to challenge moral boundaries and reject societal expectations. Subsequent studies have supported Katz’s “seduction of crime” theory. For example, in 1995, Bill McCarthy updated Katz’s research, with similar findings. McCarthy found that delinquents are more likely to be caught up in the

91

92

Choice Theories

thrill of crime or violence if the potential for loss of respect of their peers or the risk of punishment is low. As an alternative to this view, researchers Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson developed the routine activities theory of crime and violence. They argued that structural changes in routine activity patterns can influence crime rates by affecting the convergence in time and space of the three minimal elements of direct-contact predatory violations: (1) motivated offenders, (2) suitable targets, and (3) absence of capable guardians against a violation. Cohen and Felson further argued that the lack of any one of these elements is sufficient to prevent successful completion of a direct-contact predatory crime. Also, the convergence in time and space of suitable targets and the absence of capable guardians may lead to large increases in crime rates without necessarily requiring any increase in the structural conditions that motivate individuals to engage in crime. The routine activities theory makes no attempt to define a “motivated” offender. Indeed, it assumes that all people are potential offenders and that the structure and organization of daily activities may motivate anyone to become a criminal. The only articulated criteria are that the offender have criminal inclinations and the ability to carry them out. The target must be something of value to the offender or something that gives the offender a thrill or pleasure. A suitable target must also be something the offender is physically capable of acting against in a criminal sense in terms of size or weight; it must be available spatially and temporally as well. “Capable guardians” are not just police or organized security guards in a formal sense, but rather may include anyone or anything capable of guarding a suitable target. Any average person may be a capable guardian for a potential suitable target. Also, a physical or electronic device (i.e., a lock or alarm) may serve as a capable guardian. Routine activities theory holds that the manipulation of one or more of these factors would likely reduce youth crimes and violence. Prevention of juvenile crime and violence under choice theories can be achieved by making the punishments severe enough that the crime is not worth the act, or by making the crime difficult enough that the gain is not worth the risk. Under choice theories, crime prevention strategies have developed based on two premises: (1) deterrence and (2) situational crime avoidance. The deterrence concept maintains that the choice to commit delinquent acts can be minimized by the threat of punishment. A core principle of deterrence is that the more certain, swift, and severe a punishment is, the more likely a juvenile will avoid that behavior. While deterrence as a crime prevention theory may make sense, using punishment to deter juveniles is problematic. In the criminal justice system, minors cannot be, and are not, punished like adults. This difference has a major impact on deterrence theory as a viable instrument is controlling youth crime. As a consequence, many critics suggest that trying to deter delinquency with legal punishment is futile.

Clery Act

Situational crime prevention appears more promising as a means for reducing juvenile crime. Its strategies focus on making crime more difficult, so that would-be delinquents find the risk of apprehension and punishment not worth the reward of crime. Situational crime strategies rely on (1) increasing the effort a delinquent must perform to commit a crime, (2) increasing the risks in committing a crime, and/or (3) reducing the rewards. These efforts typically involve “target-hardening techniques” such as installing alarms and installing security cameras, or increasing the number of a location’s security guards. Other strategies involve police “crackdowns” at crime “hotspots.” A crackdown is a strategy used by police in which tremendous law enforcement efforts are concentrated on a certain part of a city or a neighborhood. The crackdown focuses on a hotspot—a relatively small part of city or area where a significant portion of police calls originate. The goal of a crackdown is to lower delinquency through an overwhelming show of force. While the logic of choice theories is difficult to refute, these theories fail to explain irrational youth crimes such as drug abuse, vandalism, and violence. Moreover, these theories do not answer the question of why some youths continually choose to commit crimes even after they have been caught and punished, sometimes severely. Choice theories are valuable is assessing crime patterns and understanding criminal events, but they do not adequately explain why some youths are “motivated” to be delinquent offenders. Other theories covered in this book are more useful in analyzing why some youths are prompted to commit crime and violence while others chose a more law-abiding lifestyle. Eric Bellone Further Reading Beccaria, C. (1977). On crimes and punishment, 6th ed. Trans. Henry Paolucci. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. Bentham, J. (1967). A fragment on government and an introduction to the principles of orals and legislation. Ed. Wilfred Harrison. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Katz, J. (1988). Seductions of crime. New York: Basic Books. Padilla, F. (1992). The gangs as an American enterprise. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Wilson, J. Q. (1985). Thinking about crime. New York: Basic Books.

Clery Act The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (more simply known as the Clery Act), is a federal law that requires all colleges and universities across the United States to disclose information about

93

94

Clery Act

crimes occurring on and around their campuses. The Clery Act is named after Jeanne Ann Clery, a Lehigh University student who was tortured, raped, and murdered in her campus residence hall room in April 1986. After the murder of their daughter, Jeanne’s parents discovered that Lehigh University had failed to report almost 40 violent crimes that had taken place on or near the campus during the three years before Jeanne’s murder. Along with other crime victims and their families, Jeanne’s parents testified in front of Congress in an effort to remedy this situation. Their lobbying helped lead to the passage of the Clery Act, which was originally known as the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990. Officially signed into law by President George H. W. Bush in 1990, the Clery Act requires all colleges and universities that participate in federal financial aid programs to abide by the law. Due to this provision, most institutions of higher education, both public and private, are held responsible under the Clery Act. The Clery Act is enforced by the U.S. Department of Education, which has the power to impose different levels of penalties on all institutions found in violation of the Clery Act. Examples of penalties include a $27,500 fine for each violation and suspension from participating in federal student financial aid programs. The Clery Act has four main requirements. The first is the requirement to submit an annual security report by October 1 of each year. This report must detail crime statistics for the previous three years, security policies, crime prevention programs, and procedures used by the university during an alleged sexual offense case. Institutions must make the report easily accessible to current students, prospective students, and staff. The second requirement of the Clery Act demands that the police or security department of the university keep a crime log of all crimes reported to or witnessed within the past 60 days. Also, information older than 60 days must be made available within two days if requested, and the crime logs must be kept for seven years. The Clery Act’s third requirement calls for the university to issue timely warnings of crimes that threaten the safety of the university community. Policies on timely warnings must be published in the annual security report. Finally, the fourth requirement of the Clery Act states that each institution must keep crime statistics for areas in and around the campus for the previous three years. Institutions must report homicides, aggravated assaults, robberies, arson, burglary, sexual offenses, vehicle thefts, and arrests related to drugs, alcohol, or weapons. These crimes must be reported both in the annual security report and to the U.S. Department of Education. The Clery Act has been amended a total of three times. In 1992, a requirement that all institutions give victims of sexual assault specified basic rights was added. In 1998, the reporting requirements were expanded and the act was officially named in memory of Jeanne Clery. In 2000, the legislation was amended to require that institutions inform the campus community about Megan’s Law and where the information about registered sex offenders living in the campus area can be found.

Columbine High School Massacre

Since the passage of the Clery Act, significantly more information on crime has been made available to campus communities throughout the United States. Even so, there have been a number of problems with this law. Many institutions are reluctant to publish crime information, as it is akin to a negative marketing campaign for the institution. Universities, not surprisingly, want to advertise their campuses as safe learning environments. Also, it has been reported that the Department of Education has failed to provide adequate direction to institutions on compliance and that many institutions are confused by a lack of clarity in the Clery Act. As a result of these problems, many institutions throughout the years have been in violation of the Clery Act, yet few have been penalized. Significant progress has been made since the Clery Act was passed, but more remains to be done. With a large percentage of serious crimes occurring on campus communities, campus crime remains a persistent problem. Arthur Holst Further Reading Gregory, D. E., & Janosik, S. M. (2002). The Clery Act: How effective is it? Perceptions from the field—The current state of the research and recommendations for improvement. Stetson Law Review 32(7), 20–42. Janosik, S. M., & Plummer, E. (2005). The Clery Act, campus safety and the views of assault victim advocates. College Student Affairs Journal 25(3–4), 116–130. McNeal, L. R. (2006). Clery Act: Road to compliance. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 19(1), 105–113. Wilcox, P., Jordan, C. E., & Pritchard, A. J. (2007). A multidimensional examination of campus safety: Victimization, perceptions of danger, worry about crime, and precautionary behavior among college women in the post-Clery era. Crime and Delinquency, 53(2), 219.

Columbine High School Massacre On April 20, 1999, what is considered one of the worst school shootings in U.S. history occurred at Columbine High School in Jefferson County, Colorado. In this attack, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold—both students at the school—killed 12 students and a teacher, and injured 23 others, before killing themselves. The Columbine massacre is considered the deadliest school shooting for a U.S. high school, but the fourth-deadliest attack for a school, after the killings at the Bath Consolidated School in 1927, Virginia Tech in 2007, and the University of Texas in 1966. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold both had what seemed to be good, stable families. Klebold was going to go to college in the fall, although Harris had been turned down

95

96

Columbine High School Massacre

by a few colleges. Many have debated the causes of the shooting. It has been suggested that Klebold and Harris faced a great deal of bullying in a school that did little about the situation, causing them to become more isolated, angry, and violent. Other students admitted that they teased Klebold and Harris endlessly. They claimed that no one liked the pair, and that they teased them because Klebold and Harris seemed weird (as if they were gay). According to some sources, everyone made fun of the duo to get rid of them or make them act more normal. In the video Harris and Klebold made before the shooting, they said they planned to get back at everyone for the harassment they had faced for so long. Many believed Harris and Klebold planned to get even for their inability to gain acceptance Columbine High School offers a message of hope for many different cliques. They ploton a sign after the infamous shootings at the ted against popular people, students school. (Bambi L. Dingman/Dreamstime.com) who had made fun of them, and students who ignored them. Klebold and Harris played violent video games such as Doom, and some suggest that the pair had become desensitized toward violence through these games, as well as through violent music and movies. Five years after the shooting, a number of psychiatrists and the FBI’s main Columbine investigator publicly stated that they believed Klebold had depression and Harris was a clinical psychopath who had control over Klebold. According to these investigators, a major factor in the shooting was that Harris needed to feel he was superior over others. Later, other psychiatrists weighed in against these opinions, suggesting that the diagnoses were not accurate. Critics held that the violent video games Klebold and Harris played, instead of aggravating their anger, helped them release their aggression. According to this view, when the youths were not allowed to play video games as frequently as a form of punishment, they had to instead get their aggression out in the real world. The school shooting was not the first time Klebold and Harris had gotten in trouble. On January 30, 1998, both were arrested for stealing tools from a van.

Columbine High School Massacre

They had to take classes and meet with parole officers. Harris also had to go into therapy, which he attended for approximately a year. Both got out of the program early for good behavior. Harris even wrote a letter of apology to the van’s owner, and then wrote in his journal later about how he faked it. Harris was also making plans with Klebold to attack the school even while he was in therapy. He was put on Zoloft (an antidepressant) while in therapy, but told the therapist that the medication was giving him suicidal thoughts as well as urges to harm others. The doctor switched him to Luvox, another antidepressant. It was discovered that Harris had this drug in his system when he died. Although these drugs were intended to help Harris, some psychiatrists believe they may have actually led to his violent urges, as these agents have been known to cause depersonalization and increased aggression. After the attack, officials found journals and videos documenting the plans made by Klebold and Harris. Klebold and Harris had originally planned to bomb the school, shoot any survivors, and then start shooting neighbors and others who came to see what was happening. Harris had created a website that included basics on making bombs and how to cause trouble; the site also documented the mischief he and Klebold had been getting into. It was discovered later that an Investigator with the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office knew about Harris’ website two years before the school shooting occurred. The investigator, Michael Guerra, started looking into the website after the parents of another student, Brooks Brown, complained that the site contained threats against their son. Guerra also found threats against many other people at Columbine High School on the site as well as blogs about how Harris hated society. Harris even had a “hit list” on the site, and a list of the guns and bombs he had. Guerra had intended to obtain a search warrant for Harris’s home, but never did—it was later discovered that there was not probable cause to obtain one. Members of the Sheriff’s Office and other high-ranking officials of the county decided not to mention they had knowledge of this website at the time of the shooting. The documents that stemmed from this knowledge were lost over time, and the officials’ previous access to Harris’s website was not disclosed until September 24, 2001. For the shooting, Klebold and Harris bought a rifle and two shotguns from a friend who had purchased the weapons at a gun show. They also collected two 12-gauge shotguns and two 9-mm firearms. They used the Internet to learn how to build their bombs, eventually constructing 99 of them. On April 20, before they went to the school, Klebold and Harris set a fire bomb in a field near the school to go off at 11:14 A.M. (Mountain Daylight Time). Police speculate that this event was intended to distract emergency vehicles and keep them away from the school. Klebold and Harris arrived at the school at 11:10 A.M. and parked outside the cafeteria. They brought two propane bombs hidden in duffel bags into the cafeteria during the first lunch shift, and left the bags on the floor amidst an

97

98

Columbine High School Massacre

array of other students’ bags. These bombs were set to go off at 11:17 A.M. After they put the bags down, Klebold and Harris went to their cars to wait for the bombs to explode, planning to shoot students as they ran from the cafeteria. When the bombs did not go off in the cafeteria, Klebold and Harris had to make an alternate plan. They took their guns and started shooting students who were outside the school, eating lunch and on the staircase outside. They then shot at students in the soccer fields and threw pipe bombs, although none of the shots made their mark and the bombs did not go off. A teacher, Patti Nielson, went to see what was going on and was hit by shrapnel in the shoulder from shots from Harris and Klebold. She ran to the library to warn students to be careful; from there, she called the police. The sheriff arrived at about 11:24 A.M., and shot at Klebold and Harris. Harris shot back and the sheriff made a call for backup. At that point, Harris and Klebold ran through the school, shooting at anyone who was there and throwing more pipe bombs. The two shooters then made their way to the library, which was considered the worst part of the shooting that day. First they threw two bombs into the cafeteria and one in the library hallway; this time, all of the bombs did explode. Klebold and Harris entered the library at 11:29 A.M., where two teachers, two librarians, and 52 students were taking refuge. Harris and Klebold started yelling at everyone who was hiding to stand up. No one obeyed the command, so the two started shooting anyway. They killed one student, but then saw police evacuating students outside. The pair shot at the police through the windows, and the police shot back. However, the shooters’ attention quickly turned back to the students inside the library. They started shooting under computer desks, where students were hiding, injuring and killing more students. Klebold and Harris also walked around the library, knocking down shelves and shooting more students, as well as throwing more bombs. According to witnesses, Klebold and Harris starting talking to each other about how the shooting was no longer exciting to them. They thought of possibly attacking people with knives, which they supposed might be more fun. Instead of doing so, however, the pair left the library at 11:42 A.M. As soon as they left, some students fled the library and managed to get outside the building, while others hid in the staff break room until about 3:30 P.M., when police found them. Meanwhile, Klebold and Harris wandered through the school, shooting and throwing bombs as they went. At 12:02 P.M., they went back into the library, which was now empty except for unconscious students on the floor. This is where, at the end of it all, Harris and Klebold killed themselves. Eric Harris, age 18, shot himself in the mouth one time. Dylan Klebold, age17, died from a single shot to his head. At 1:09 P. M., the SWAT team went into the school, after the shootings had ended. Team members determined that the school was safe at 4:30 P.M., but later found more explosives, including in Klebold’s car; thus the school was not

Comprehensive Crime Control Act

officially declared safe to enter again until 10:00 A. M. the next day. Officials believe the shootings lasted for 45 minutes before Klebold and Harris shot themselves. In total, they killed 12 students and one teacher, and injured 24 others; another three people were injured trying to get out of the school. The casualties of the shooting that day were Cassie Bernall, Matt Kechter, Corey DePooter, Isaiah Schoels, Daniel Rohrbough, Steve Curnow, Lauren Townsend, Kelly Fleming, Kyle Velasquez, Daniel Mauser, John Tomlin, Rachel Scott, and Coach Dave Sanders. Officials started their investigation at 11:30 A.M. on April 21, while 13 bodies were still in the school. The victims were not taken out of the school to be identified until the late afternoon and early evening that day. During the investigation, officials held a press conference to say they believed other people had helped plan the shooting. Columbine differed from some school shootings in that afterward, there was no one to take to trial, as Harris and Klebold both killed themselves. The shooting at Columbine High School opened American society’s eyes to many issues related to youth and safety. People began more closely scrutinizing youth violence, gun control laws, high school subcultures, bullying, and the effect of media such as video games, after this shooting occurred. Harris and Klebold also influenced many other school shootings or attempted school shootings, as other students wanted to be like them or wanted to outdo them. Sharon Thiel Further Reading CNN. (2000, May). Report: 12 killed at Columbine in first 16 minutes. Retrieved December 12, 2008, from CNN.com Fine, M., Weis, L., Pruitt, L., & Burns, A. (2004). Off white: Readings on power, privilege, and resistance, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office. (n.d.). The Columbine report. Retrieved December 14, 2008, from http://web.dailycamera.com/shooting/2000.html The Rocky Mountain News. (n.d.). Columbine High School shootings. Retrieved December 14, 2008, from http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/special -reports/columbine/

Comprehensive Crime Control Act The Comprehensive Crime Control Act was a comprehensive package of crime measures passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on October 12, 1984. Although many important criminal issues, such as

99

100

Comprehensive Crime Control Act

capital punishment and habeas corpus, were kept out of the legislation, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act is recognized as one of the largest and most significant reforms of the U.S. criminal justice system. Support for the legislation varied. Many individuals and organizations embraced numerous provisions of the act, yet opposed many others. Given that the act is such a wide-ranging piece of legislation, lawyers and courts have spent many years sorting out all of its details. The act contains 23 chapters, but it is the first 12 chapters that are most important. The legislation, which was submitted as part of Reagan’s crime control program, had bipartisan support, but it still took great political pressure to finally get it passed. The most notable provisions of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act include sections on bail conditions, the insanity defense, sentencing, victims of crime, justice assistance, and drugs and narcotics. The act authorized courts to consider dangerousness when setting bail conditions, and also allowed courts to establish pretrial detention if necessary. If there is reason to believe a person will not return to court as required or that releasing someone on bail would put an individual or community at risk, certain bail conditions and pretrial detention are considered acceptable. Concerning the new insanity defense test, if a defendant can prove with convincing evidence that he or she suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the crime, it is accepted that the defendant did not understand the wrongfulness of the activity. Intoxication due to alcohol or drugs does not count during an insanity defense test. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act established a U.S. Sentencing Commission responsible for collecting information and recommending sentencing guidelines to federal judges. With consent from the Senate, the president is responsible for appointing the seven voting members of the commission; in addition, the U.S. Attorney General is a nonvoting member of this group. If courts do not follow the guidelines created by the Sentencing Commission, they must explain why in writing. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act also created a Crime Victims Fund in the U.S. Treasury. Specific criminal fines are paid into this fund and a certain amount is distributed among the states each year. Much of the funds go to crime victim compensation programs and other assistance programs. Under the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention was given an extension to operate, and a missing-children hotline was established. The act also increased many federal penalties for drug and narcotic offenses, while simultaneously reducing some restrictions on compliant manufacturers and distributors of legitimate controlled substances. The act established a National Drug Enforcement Policy Board in the executive branch. This board is controlled by the U.S. Attorney General, who is charged with working with numerous U.S. Cabinet officers who deal with drug enforcement.

Conflict Resolution/Peer Mediation

The Comprehensive Crime Control Act includes countless other provisions. Some of the more significant ones include the following: clarification of the federal criminal and civil forfeiture laws, improvement in federal statues meant to prevent international money laundering, expansion of emergency wiretapping, strengthening of federal statutes dealing with trademarks, strengthening of the federal labor racketeering law by increasing the maximum period of being disqualified from certain positions from five to 13 years, raising of U.S. attorney salaries, and the creation of federal criminal offenses for misuse and counterfeiting of credit or debit cards. Arthur Holst Further Reading Congress wraps up a crime package. (1984). ABA Journal, 70(12), 44–46. Panter, D. (1985). The changes accomplished by the labor racketeering amendments of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. Labor Law Journal, 36(10), 744–761. Purdy, D. (1997). Seeking justice in federal sentencing. Update on Law-Related Education, 21(2), 31–35. Trott, S. (1985). Implementing criminal justice reform. Public Administration Review, 45, 795–800.

Conflict Resolution/Peer Mediation Conflict resolution/peer mediation is a process in which student peer mediators, often recruited from among interested students and trained by trained school staff, use a step-by-step model to help peers negotiate the resolution of conflicts while respecting each disputant’s needs. The use of peer mediation as a conflict resolution approach has expanded as schools have increasingly sought to reduce violence, eliminate bullying, and encourage the peaceful resolution of conflicts. The first peer mediation program, Teaching Students to Be Peacemakers, dates back to the 1960s and is still widely used. In 1972, another popular conflict resolution curriculum, Children’s Creative Response to Conflict, was developed to train teachers to teach students about nonviolence. In 2007, Rita Schellenberg, a professional school counselor, developed Peace Pals. Most of the models used in peer mediation curriculum utilize some version of the following six steps: 1. The disputants agree to confidential mediation with a peer mediator. 2. The peer mediator hears the disputants’ points of view. 3. The peer mediator helps the disputants focus on their shared interests.

101

102

Conflict Resolution/Peer Mediation

4. The peer mediator works with the disputants to brainstorm win-win options, which are written down on a worksheet. 5. The peer mediator and the disputants evaluate each option. 6. When a resolution is reached, an agreement is created, both disputants sign it in the presence of the mediator, and then all parties shake hands. Typically, during peer mediation sessions, the peer mediator sits (sometimes at a table) with the two disputants. Most of the conflicts mediated in schools involve verbal and physical fights between students, gossip, name calling, and ongoing disagreements. Peer mediation among students has many advantages over other conflict resolution approaches. First, it recognizes that only the disputants can resolve their own conflicts, and that they can best determine a suitable resolution. Second, a resolution that is reached by mutual agreement of the disputants is more likely to succeed than a resolution imposed by school authorities. Third, the use of peer mediators makes the process age appropriate. Fourth, peer mediators can help to normalize the use of peer mediation to resolve conflicts among peers, as they understand their peers better than do adults. Research has identified numerous benefits as accruing from peer mediation programs, particularly among students in the lower grade levels. Schools with effective peer mediation programs report fewer physical fights among students and an overall reduction in disciplinary problems. Peer mediators also benefit from participating in peer mediation, in that they gain peer mediation knowledge and gain self-confidence. Peer mediation has its critics, however. Some contend that peer mediation does not solve all conflicts and that peer mediators end up addressing only easily resolvable conflicts. Critics also claim that peer mediators and teachers, including those supervising mediators, typically receive inadequate training (a few hours, if that much). Another criticism levied against peer mediation programs is that peer mediators often end up being disliked by their peers, who see them as rule enforcers. For peer mediation to work, mediators must be viewed as impartial, which is not always the case given that mediators are part of peer hierarchies and friendship networks. Most research suggests that such programs produce little to no educational benefit for disputants. Another criticism is that some disputants participate in peer mediation sessions to avoid punishment; thus they may go through the motions and sign an agreement when, in fact, the conflict was not actually resolved. What is more, critics point out, peer mediation is not especially effective with older students, whose conflicts tend to be more complex and serious, and when peers’ opinions of them become even more important to students. Researchers have found numerous impediments to successful implementation of peer mediation programs. Some students are reluctant to participate in peer

Conflict Resolution/Peer Mediation

mediation because they are not informed, or are ill informed, about what peer mediation is and how it works. If they do understand peer mediation, some students do not seek out peer mediators because they do not trust that their privacy will be respected and worry that what they say during peer mediation sessions will not remain confidential. What is more, some students worry that they will be humiliated and embarrassed for either serving as peer mediators or seeking them out, because peer mediation is perceived as “not cool” within their peer world; this concern is especially likely if those involved are less popular students. Also, students may choose to choose to deal with their own problems and may prefer revenge over mediation. Students who are passive may be unwilling to seek out peer mediators to help them resolve a conflict. Some impediments have to do with school climate and issues related to peer mediation programs. Many teachers do not consistently use conflict resolution and peer mediation strategies; that is, conflicts between school staff and with students may not be resolved using mediation approaches. Lack of ongoing training for teachers and peer mediators has also proved to be a challenge. Fewer students choose to participate in peer mediation when peer mediators are not as diverse as the student population at a school. Students are also likely to dismiss peer mediation if the disciplinary policies at their schools are not aligned with peer mediation principles—that is, if the policies focus on punishment rather than on conflict resolution. When students do not feel respected by teachers, they are less likely to support peer mediation programs. Overcrowding at schools and student concerns about their well-being and safety also make students less likely to seek out mediation. Lack of resources, such as a physical space in which to hold peer mediation sessions, and the lack of district-wide mediation programming limit the effectiveness of peer mediation as well. Another hindrance to the effective implementation of peer mediation programs is the set of social norms that students bring with them from home, the community, and the society at large about violence, aggression, and conflicts. Given these impediments to effective peer mediation, educators and scholars have made the following suggestions to increase the value of such programs. School districts need to provide teachers—particularly those supervising peer mediators—with the necessary training and time. Peer mediation training should begin in elementary school years. Training should include a better understanding of race, class, gender, sexuality, learning styles, communication skills, and social skills. Richard Mora Further Reading Burrell, N. A., Zirbel, C. S., & Allen, M. (2003). Evaluating peer mediation outcomes in educational settings: A meta-analytic review. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 21(1), 7–26.

103

104

Conflict Theories

Casella, R. (2000). The benefits of peer mediation in the context of urban conflict and program status. Urban Education, 35, 324–355. Cohen, R. (2005). Students resolving conflict. New York: Good Year Books. Cremin, H. (2007). Peer mediation: Citizenship and social inclusion in action. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2001). Teaching students to be peacemakers: A meta-analysis. Annual Meeting of Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Jones, T. S. (2004). Conflict resolution education: The field, the findings, and the future. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22(1–2), 233–267. Schellenberg, R., Parks-Savage, A., & Rehfuss, M. (2007). Reducing levels of elementary school violence with peer mediation. Professional School Counseling, 10(5), 475–481. Theberge, S. K., & Karan, O. C. (2004). Six factors inhibiting the use of peer mediation in a junior high school. Professional School Counseling, 7(4), 283–290.

Conflict Theories Conflict theories have their roots in radical political movements such as Marxism and anarchism. Since the 1960s, they have also been influenced by the feminist and anti-racist movements as well as post-structuralism and anti-imperialist theories. Conflict theorists argue that the roots of modern crime problems are linked with those of modern capitalist economies. Capitalist societies, which are founded on a broad division of labor and highly stratified with vast disparities of wealth and poverty, are grounded in often sharp conflicts. As a system based on economic inequality, capitalism has long been characterized by profound struggles over social resources and political decision making. The central conflict occurs between those who own and control property and resources (the bourgeoisie or capital class) and those who have to sell their labor to survive (the proletariat or working class). Extreme differences between “haves” and “have-nots” give rise not only to conflict, but also to sociopolitical institutions that serve to regulate that conflict, typically in ways that secure the success of elites and dominant classes. For conflict theorists, the criminal justice system is a mechanism for enforcement of elite social control and the preservation of economic inequalities to maintain elites’ interests. Conflict theories argue that the state ministers largely to capitalist interests. Agencies of government target not only the underclass for enforcement of policies, but the working class as a whole. Working-class crime is more visible, whether it

Conflict Theories

takes the form of school crime or street crime. In addition, working-class people lack access to the necessary resources to get away with “invisible crimes,” such as fraud, tax evasion, insider trading, or influence peddling. Capitalist ideology even conditions the very ways in which crime is perceived— that is, largely in terms of an ethic of individualism that separates the understanding of social problems from their social structural contexts of inequality and power. Individuals, who are presented abstractly without reference to specific histories and experiences, are blamed for acts and attention is diverted from the socioeconomic structures in which the acts take place and are perceived. Institutions within capitalist societies, such as government, the media, the police, and the courts, tend to individualize highly complex issues and depoliticize the emergence of deviant activities by referring such activities back to “damaged” or deviant individuals who are in need of treatment or punishment. Indeed, for conflict theorists the very notion of “the individual” is a recent modernist notion. Conflict theories are often contrasted with “consensus theories,” which suggest that the basis for society is social consensus—an unspoken general agreement on broad social issues. For conflict theorists, notions of consensus serve to cover up or diminish inequalities and relationships of power that determine, or at least condition, the social opportunities, capacities for decision making, and positive action within people’s lives. Consensus suggests that decisions made by powerful and influential members of society—those individuals and groups who have the resources needed to influence social development in a way that benefits their interests—are willfully accepted or agreed to by those lacking power. Where non-elites contest or challenge inequality, their efforts are often met with criminalization, oppression, or repression. In fact, for conflict theorists, it is not consensus, but rather something more akin to fear or compulsion that drives social action. In this manner, elites are able to assert that their very particular interests are synonymous with the interests of society as a whole, largely because opposition is marginalized or silenced. This construction of particular elite interests as “common interests” is a process that some conflict theorists term “hegemony.” Drawn from the writings of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, hegemony refers to the manner in which dominant groups are able to condition non-elites to accept their subordinate status. Media theorist Noam Chomsky modifies this concept to speak of the “manufacture of consent,” as elites are able, largely through mass media but also through schools, to secure and maintain the capacity to govern over subordinate groups. For conflict theorists, consensus theories of crime and deviance serve this process of hegemony by deflecting attention away from social structures of inequality and power, which conceivably might be opposed and changed, and toward the failings of individuals, who are targeted for punishment or medicalization.

105

106

Conflict Theories

Conflict theorists prefer to focus on elite deviance, involving acts that are socially, economically, and ecologically harmful, rather than on minor street crimes and the nuisance activities and survival strategies of the poor. They also reject short-term disciplinary approaches administered by the state, such as police, prisons, and punishment. Instead. conflict theorists emphasize restorative justice and reconciliation via community-based processes such as healing circles—a process that brings victims, offenders, and community members together to seek mutual understanding and restore social relations. Powerful groups are able to mobilize public opinion on behalf of their interests. The law is itself created by economic elites who control the production and distribution of major resources in society, including intellectual and educational resources. Legislators are influenced by powerful segments of society through lobbying groups, political action committees, and campaign contributions. Dominant groups shape public perceptions of crime and its definition. As a consequence, focus is shifted to “street crimes” and the crimes of working-class youth, such as drug use, petty theft, shoplifting, and minor assault, rather than to corporate crimes or government crimes, which are the crimes committed by elites. Dominant institutions also create “worthy” and “unworthy” victims of crime. Affluent victims receive more press coverage; minority and low-income law breakers are more likely to be publicized as criminals than are corporate leaders, whose crimes may actually be more harmful to individuals, society, and the environment. Perpetrators of corporate deviance, who profit from unsafe working conditions for their employees, the release of dangerous toxins into the air and water, the sale of faulty products, and fraudulent business practices, among other acts, present ongoing economic, social, and physical threats. Yet those responsible for such activities rarely appear in the media or court records. They receive far less attention than deviant youth, whose actions may be much less harmful. The crimes of major corporations, where they are given attention, are typically dealt with through less visible and less punitive civil procedures rather than criminal trials. Whereas school crime and deviance undertaken by working-class youth become the subjects of moral panics and strict policing and have relatively large amounts of social resources directed toward stopping the offending behavior, corporate crimes receive relatively little media focus, public outcry, or legislative response. Conflict theorists question why it is that the waters are being filled with harmful chemicals, yet attention is directed toward arresting youth for minor drug offenses. For conflict theorists, authorities should not be assumed to be acting on behalf of society at large, but rather serving their own interests and acting on behalf of other dominant groups. According to this view, rather than being expressions of general will or social contract, laws are methods for a privileged group to oppress or exploit an underprivileged one. Laws against theft, squeegeeing, or squatting

Conflict Theories

prevent a redistribution of social wealth, a point that is highly relevant given that most crimes are actually property crimes. Conflict theories emphasize that some people and groups wield power and are able to make their definitions of situations stick, whereas others lack this capacity. Thus the definition of deviance is a form of social control exerted typically by more powerful actors over less powerful actors. As part of this process, authorities (the dominant) learn norms and practices of domination, while subordinates (subjects) learn norms and practices of deference. Conflict theorists do not take rules and regulations as given, but rather view them as part of a sociopolitical process. Labeling of crime and criminals is part of a process of conflict that excludes subordinate actors, particularly poor and working-class youth, from social participation or from power. It can marginalize those who challenge or reject the status quo that leaves them in positions of unequal status. According to this perspective, the key factor is relative power. Within capitalist societies, the poor have the least power. Thus we might expect them to have the highest rates of criminalization, which is not to say that they exhibit the highest rates of deviance or crime. This understanding helps to explain, for conflict theorists, why poor African American youth are the most criminalized group in North America and are given the most negative attention by the state. Conflict theorists argue that contemporary criminalization processes work to ensure that those who are brought within the criminal justice system are typically of the lowest socioeconomic standing. Deviants, in a society that demands material accumulation, are those who are not succeeding or who do not accept their diminished status. The poor are more likely to be arrested, formally charged, go to trial, be convicted, and receive harsher sentences. Poor communities are often treated by government and police as though they are enemy territories subjected to sustained and intrusive surveillance. For conflict theorists, working-class youth within capitalist divisions of labor are socialized, from early ages, to accept subordinate positions within society, including unsatisfactory labor within jobs that offer little satisfaction and few opportunities for personal growth and advancement. Without that socialization, which is a necessary part of the process of hegemony, working-class youth would rebel and pose a challenge to the inequalities of the status quo social relations and their place within them. Numerous studies from within conflict perspectives, including the work of Peter McLaren and Paul Willis, explain how public schools are structured to prepare working-class youth for manual labor. Part of this preparation includes the targeting and punishment of recalcitrant youth who rebel against the bleak prospects that their futures are deemed to hold. Such subcultures become markers for resistance against the apparent gap between the promise of upward mobility and the reality that this is beyond working-class youths’ reach.

107

108

Control Theories

To quell this rebellion, authorities wield formal rules and laws and informal normal discourses to reintegrate working-class youth within the dominant structures of inequality. Jeffrey Shantz Further Reading Rieman, J. (2006). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class and criminal justice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Taylor, I., Walton, P., & Young, J. (1988). The new criminology: For a social theory of deviance. London: Routledge. Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labour: How working class kids get working class jobs. Aldershot: Gower.

Control Theories Control theories are unique in the field of criminology in that they intend to answer a different question than do most other theories. While most criminological theories are intended to explain why criminals offend, control theories seek to identify the reasons why persons refrain from criminal activity. Thus the assumptions are that crime is not innate, and that criminal offenders are not dramatically different from non-offenders. All people are capable of offending, but some never do. For control theorists, the latter population is of most interest. Additionally, some control theories address why offenders stop engaging in criminal activity. Psychoanalytic theory was an early form of control theory. Developed by Sigmund Freud, psychoanalytic theory proposes that human personalities are made up of three parts: the id, the ego, and the superego. The id comprises our impulses; it must be restrained by other parts of the personality to enable persons to fit into society. The ego offers a sort of check on the impulsive id, in that it brings to the personality realism and organization. The superego fulfills the critical and moral functions. Thus the ego and the superego work together to restrain the id. Freud asserted that the ego and the superego develop through socialization, so that early learning experiences with the family, peers, and school systems help override the id’s impulsivity. Freud’s ideas are so abstract that they are nearly impossible to test. Another control theory was developed by Walter Reckless. Reckless called his work containment theory. He asserted that low self-esteem and low self-concept are associated with delinquency. In contrast, high self-esteem help constrain delinquency. Reckless theorized that individuals experience both inner and outer pressures to engage in delinquent acts. By extension, it is the development of both

Control Theories

inner and outer pressures that can help an individual resist these forces. High selfesteem, which is developed through positive childhood socialization, is the key inner constraint. Primary groups help provide outer constraints. Some research has found that delinquents’ self-esteem is, indeed, considerably lower than that of nondelinquents. One of the most well known control theories is also one of the most widely used in the field of criminology. Travis Hirschi developed social control theory in 1969. He asserted that the primary mechanism that constrains delinquency is social bonds. Social bonds are composed of four components: attachment, commitment. involvement, and belief. Individuals who do not have these components or who have very weak bonds are prone to delinquency. In contrast, strong social bonds act to thwart delinquency. Attachment refers to a person’s emotional commitment and connection with individuals and groups. According to social control theory. youths who have attachments to individuals and groups will be socialized into norms that promote positive, prosocial behavior. Attachment also involves an individual’s sensitivity and ability to empathize with others. Hirschi considered attachment to be the most important social bond, as the individual internalizes these norms. Commitment is the investment in and orientation to reference groups. Because the individual is accepted by these groups, he or she achieves a sense of connection and will be unwilling to risk losing it for sake of committing a delinquent act. Involvement refers to the time an individual spends interacting with prosocial groups and in prosocial activity. Belief is the individual’s internalizing of positive social norms and his or her adherence to conformity. Hirschi’s theory is one of the most thoroughly tested in criminology, with some studies finding support for it and others failing to do so. One difficulty arises in operationalizing the four bonds Hirschi described. Researchers have grappled with the best way to define and measure attachment, for instance. Additionally, it is not clear how much attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief a particular individual needs to constrain delinquent activity. Hirschi found that students’ attachment to school and school grades was linked to delinquency, although other important variables may exist that were not assessed in his study. In generally, evaluation studies have found control theories to be better at predicting property and drug offenses than violent crime. Critics often point out that specific delinquent groups have all four qualities, but these bonds are directed toward a delinquent lifestyle. For instance, gang members are emotionally committed to one another, are invested in one another, see one another as a reference group, spend a great deal of time interacting with one another, and internalize specific groupbased social norms. In 1990, Hirschi teamed with Michael Gottfredson to develop a different control theory called the general theory of crime (GTC). GTC asserts that it is the

109

110

Coon, Asa

coupling of low self-concept with opportunity that leads to delinquency. According to this theory, when they are tempted in a given social environment, individuals lacking a strong self-concept will be unable to resist. The idea that some of the most violent school and campus shooters lack selfconcept and social bonds sounds logical, but does not necessarily hold up upon further investigation. Instead of low self-esteem, many of these individuals seem to have almost narcissistic personalities. Further, while some have unstable home lives and are not involved in school, others do not come from this type of background. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Agnew, R. (1991). A longitudinal test of social control theory and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28(2), 126–156. Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Hirschi, T. (2001). Causes of delinquency. Somerset, NJ: Transaction. Pitarro, M. (2007). School violence and social control theory: An evaluation of the Columbine massacre. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 2(1), 1–12.

Coon, Asa Asa Coon was just 14 when he snuck into his school, SuccessTech Academy in Cleveland, Ohio, with three knives, two pistols, and two boxes of ammunition tucked into the baggy pockets of his cargo pants. Attacking individuals at the school, Coon wounded two teachers and two students before police arrived. It is believed Coon targeted the teachers, David Kachadourian and Michael Grassie, because they had previously disciplined him. Students described the attacks as random, however. As he saw the swarm of officers coming to get him, Coon shot himself in the head. Coon’s short life had been filled with neglect and abuse. In 1997, at the age of three, Coon lived with his family in Cortland, New York. A caseworker for the Cortland County Social Services Department who was called to visit the home found it to be filthy, with garbage strewn everywhere. Neighbors had reported that Asa’s older brothers, Stephen and Daniel, had threatened them with weapons that included rocks, knives, and a fake bomb. The children were removed from the care of their mother, Lori Looney, after the county juvenile court found her guilty of neglect. The boys’ father, Thomas Coon, was not involved with the family. Stephen continued to get into trouble regularly and was found guilty of numerous criminal violations, including burglary, felonious assault, and domestic violence.

Coon, Asa

The family was eventually reunited and moved to Cleveland. In January 2005, at age 11, Asa was arrested for attacking his mother, yelling obscenities at her, and punching her in the left eye. He admitted the crime in juvenile court and was adjudicated to attend six hours per week of counseling, attend an anger management course, and perform community service. Coon did receive one-on-one counseling for five months, until his probation ended. He was unable to attend the anger management course because he was too young to register. At one point, Coon made a suicidal statement to caseworkers and was prescribed medications to treat depression and hyperactivity. Court documents show he was not always compliant. Despite these difficulties, caseworker reports show Coon to be nice and well mannered. Things seemed to have been going better for Coon when he applied to SuccessTech in the fall of 2007. The school had a great reputation as an alternative to the traditional public schools. It had a graduation rate of 94%—much higher than the district level of 55%. Coon was not treated well by other students, who picked on him because of his stature and his choice of clothing. Coon was short and somewhat chubby and dressed all in black, like a Goth. After his attack, students reported that when they taunted him, Coon would always say, “I’m going to get you,” but they did not take him seriously. Two days before the incident at SuccessTech, Coon’s brother Stephen was again arrested, this time for involvement in an armed robbery. That same day, Asa Coon was suspended from school after being involved in a fistfight. It seems these two incidents pushed an already troubled young man over the edge. When Coon started shooting at the school, the school principal called a “Code Blue” on the intercom, alerting students and staff of the danger. Many hid in closets during Coon’s rampage. Immediately after the attack, critics questioned the school’s security. Cleveland Police Chief Michael McGrath said the school sometimes used metal detectors and always had at least one guard near the front door, but students did not have to pass through the detector unless they were going to school district headquarters, which were on the lower level of the building. The district formerly had two other security officers, but they had been transferred to other schools two years earlier due to budget cuts. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Cleveland school shooting: What happened. (2007, October 11). WKYC Cleveland. Retrieved April 22, 2010, from http://www.wkyc.com/news/news _article.aspx?storyid=75879&provider=gnews Maag, C. (2007, October 12). Short but troubled life ended in shooting and suicide. New York Times. Retrieved April 22, 2010. from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/ 10/12/us/12cleveland.html

111

112

Corporal Punishment

Police Chief: Teen shoots four, kills self at Cleveland high school. (2007, October 11). CNN. Retrieved April 22, 2010, from http://www.cnn.com/2007/ US/10/10/cleveland.shooting/index.html

Corporal Punishment Corporal punishment is the intentional infliction of physical pain with the goal of changing problem behavior. In 1974, the American Psychological Association (APA) passed a formal resolution to ban the practice in schools. The National Coalition to Abolish Corporal Punishment in Schools, which includes the National Center on Child Abuse Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the National Education Association, and other high-profile groups, was formed in 1987 with the goal of banning physical punishment of children and youth in school. In 1975, in the Ingraham v. Wright case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this practice is not a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Twenty-one states have laws permitting corporal punishment of students, although in some of these states individual districts prohibit the practice. A 2008 report by Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union found that, in the 2006–2007 school year, more than 200,000 students in U.S. schools had been spanked in the previous school year. In total, 223,190 students were physically punished in schools. Thirteen states use corporal punishment frequently. Mississippi schools used corporal punishment on the greatest percentage of students (7.5%), followed by Arkansas (4.7%) and Alabama (4.5%). Some students are more likely to endure corporal punishment. Although African Americans constituted 17% of the entire student population in 2006–2007, they accounted for 36% of the students who were physically punished—more than twice the rate for white students. Critics assert that corporal punishment is cruel, and that it is disproportionately meted out against minorities, boys, and special needs students. For instance, the 2008 report found that students with disabilities were paddled more than twice as often as general education students. Students with autism are especially at risk of being punished in this way. Corporal punishment also disrupts learning, as students who are being physically punished are often held up as a spectacle for others to ridicule. Further, it teaches that physical violence is an appropriate way to solve problems. In fact, critics maintain that rather than deterring problem behavior, corporal punishment actually provokes it. The 2008 report cited a correlation with poverty and lack of resources as well, noting that districts and individual teachers lacking other options and stressed by the need to handle overcrowded schools and classes may resort to physical means to keep students in line.

Crime and Violence in Private Secondary Schools

Supporters argue that corporal punishment is quick and cost-effective. They often cite a religious basis for this practice, following the biblical adage “Spare the rod, spoil the child.” In its May 4, 2009, issue, Newsweek told the story of Principal David Nixon of John C. Calhoun Elementary in Calhoun Hills, South Carolina. Nixon has implemented a discipline program that involves corporal punishment and claims that it is a major reason why the school has dramatically increased its academic performance in recent years. He and other supporters maintain that this policy is better than removing students from classes. More than just embarrassing, corporal punishment can lead to serious, longterm consequences. The Society for Adolescent Medicine has documented severe muscle injury, extensive blood-clotting, whiplash, and hemorrhaging in students who were subjected to this punishment. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Adelson, E. (2009, May 4). The principal and the paddle. Newsweek. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://www.newsweek.com/id/195119 Discipline at school. (n.d.). Center for Effective Discipline. Retrieved August 20, 2009, from http://www.stophitting.com/index.php?page=statesbanning Greydanus, D., Pratt, H., Spates, C., Blake-Dreher, A., Greydanus-Gearhart, M., & Patel, D. (2003, May). Corporal punishment in schools. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, 385–293. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://www.adolescenthealth .org/PositionPaper_Corporal_Punishment_in_Schools.pdf Hyman, I., & Snook, P. (1999). Dangerous schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. More than 200,000 kids spanked at school. (2008, August 20). CNN. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/20/corporal .punishment/ Stephey, M. (2009, August 12). Corporal punishment in U.S. schools. Time. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/ 0,8599,1915820,00.html World Corporal Punishment Research: http://www.corpun.com/websch.htm

Crime and Violence in Private Secondary Schools Private secondary schools are schools that receive no government funding and educate some combination of students between grades 6 and 12. More than 2.5 million students attend private secondary schools in the United States; approximately 80% of those students attend private secondary schools operated by, or affiliated with, a religious organization. Although vast differences exist among private secondary schools, on average these schools tend to have smaller student bodies and

113

114

Crime and Violence in Private Secondary Schools

lower teacher-to-student ratios than public (government-funded) secondary schools. Much of the research that has been done on crime and violence in schools has focused on public schools; however, scholars are increasingly studying issues of crime and violence in private schools as well. The 2009 Indicators of School Crime and Safety report, compiled by the National Center for Education Statistics and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, contains data from many different sources about levels of school crime and violence in the United States. These sources include surveys of students and teachers in both public and private secondary schools. How prevalent are crime and violence in private secondary schools? How do rates of crime and violence in private secondary schools compare with rates in public secondary schools? The School Crime Supplement to the 2007 National Crime Victimization Survey, which is described in the Indicators report, found that just 1%of private school students between the ages of 12 and 18 said that they had been victims of a crime at school, while 5% of such students at public schools reported this kind of victimization. Similarly, a lower proportion of private school students (2%) than public school students (6%) in this age group said that they were afraid of being attacked or harmed at school. (In this survey, “at school” meant both within school buildings and grounds, as well as on the way to or from school.) One of the most pronounced differences between public and private secondary schools that this survey uncovered concerned gangs. While only 5% of the students aged 12 to 18 in private schools reported that gangs were active at school, 25% of the students in public schools reported gang activity there. Regarding hate crimes, 6% of private secondary students said that they had been called a hatebased name or word, while 10% of public secondary students made such a report. Approximately 19% of the students surveyed in private schools said they had encountered hate-based graffiti at school, compared to 36% of the students surveyed in public schools. Finally, a separate survey included in the Indicators of School Crime and Safety report asked teachers at all school levels (elementary and secondary) about whether they had been victims of crimes at school during the 2007–2008 academic year. Only 3% of private school teachers said that they had been threatened with injury, compared to 8% of public school teachers. These statistics indicate that, on average, many measures of violence and crime are lower in private secondary schools than in public secondary schools. Has this always been the case? How have rates of crime and violence in public and private secondary schools changed over the past 20 years? The results of the more recent surveys can be put into historical perspective by examining a 1991 report that assessed the results of the 1989 National Crime Victimization Survey. This survey also asked students about their experiences of crime and violence at school. According to the survey, in 1989, 7% of private secondary students said that they had been a victim of a property or violent crime while at school, while 9% of

Crime and Violence in Private Secondary Schools

public secondary students reported the same thing. In addition, 13% of private secondary students reported that they feared being attacked at school, while 22% of public secondary students said this. Although differences in methodology make it difficult to directly compare these figures to the current statistics, it seems evident that differences between private and public secondary schools also existed more than 20 years ago. A few researchers have moved beyond these general statistics and sought to more deeply analyze crime and violence in private secondary schools. Mijanovich and Weitzman (2003), for example, examined data collected in 1998–1999 in the form of interviews with students between the ages of 10 and 18. During these interviews, students were asked whether they had felt unsafe in school yesterday. While 11% of students enrolled in urban public schools said they had felt unsafe, only 7% of students enrolled in urban private schools said this. Interestingly, no statistically significant difference was found between the responses of suburban private and public school students in regard to this question. The results of this study indicate that there are always many nuances to consider when making broad comparisons. Why do some private secondary schools have lower rates of crime and violence than some public secondary schools? Observers and researchers have proposed a number of different answers to this question. One such answer focuses on school size. Given that research indicates that overcrowding is associated with higher levels of crime in schools, some private schools may have lower rates of crime because private schools are often smaller than public schools. Another potential explanation is that some private schools are selective—meaning that students must apply for admission, often by taking admissions tests, submitting previous school transcripts, and attending interviews. This process may allow private schools to exclude some students with a history of delinquent behavior. Public secondary schools, in contrast, are not selective. These are just two of the many theories that have been posited to explain differences in some reported crime and violence rates. Ultimately, although evidence suggests that rates of crime and violence tend to be lower in private secondary schools, the data presented here demonstrate that these issues are present in many private secondary schools as well. More research into the specific features of crime and violence—and ways to prevent crime and violence—in private secondary schools is certainly needed. Tiffany Bergin Further Reading Bastian, L. D., & Taylor, B. M. (1991). School crime: A National Crime Victimization Survey report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/ custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch

115

116

Crime Stoppers

_SearchValue_0=ED339133&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno =ED339133 Broughman, S. P., Swaim, N. L., & Keaton, P. W. (2009). Characteristics of private schools in the United States: Results from the 2007–08 Private School Universe Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/ 2009313.pdf Dinkes, R., Kemp, J., Baum, K., & Snyder, T. D. (2009). Indicators of school crime and safety. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/ 2010012.pdf Mijanovich, T., & Weitzman, B. C. (2003). Which broken window matter? School, neighborhood and family characteristics associated with youths’ feelings of unsafety. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 80(3), 400–415. National Center for Education Statistics (2002). Fast facts: In what ways do public and private schools differ? Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/ display.asp?id=55

Crime Stoppers Crime Stoppers is an international organization that uses various media to inform and request that individual citizens report information on unsolved crimes to local law enforcement authorities. The organization was founded by Detective Greg MacAleese, who was trying to solve a murder in Albuquerque, New Mexico. After seeing a story about the crime on a local television station, a caller provided information to police that led to arrests and justice in the case. MacAleese then established Crime Stoppers in Albuquerque as a new tool for law enforcement, which encouraged ordinary citizens to speak up if they witnessed or learned of any type of crime or violence. By allowing citizens to make phone calls anonymously, officials could give assurances for the safety of the caller. Later, free long-distance phone lines and call centers were established to expand the region that accepted tips of possible crime. Area police would then follow up on tips. In some cases, if the tip resulted in a felony arrest, the caller might receive a cash or other reward. By the 1990s, Crime Stoppers had expanded overseas. Today, Crime Stoppers International and Crime Stoppers U.S.A. have more than 1,100 programs in cities across the globe, including parts of Canada, Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Poland, and Puerto Rico. The mission statement of Crime Stoppers International

Crime Stoppers

Crime Stoppers uses various forms of media, from billboards to the Internet, to spread information about wanted criminals. The idea behind the program is to encourage public involvement so as to keep communities safe. (AP/Wide World Photos)

is “to develop Crime Stoppers as an effective crime-solving organization throughout the world, with the primary objective of the tri-partite organization, Community, Media and Law Enforcement, being Working Together to Solve Crime.” The organization behind each Crime Stoppers program establishes targeted goals to reduce crime hotspots. Because the group is a nonprofit organization, some police departments collaborate with it as well as local television and newspaper media to seek information from the public on unsolved crimes by providing phone numbers and assuring anonymity. Crime Stoppers also produces an informational publication, known as The Caller, which includes coverage of various crime-related topics as well as training information for program participants. In terms of solving crime cases, European news reports indicate that Crime Stoppers has been very effective in assisting law enforcement in solving a variety of violent and property crimes. Internationally, the organization has conveyed a strong message that—as a community agency—the public is responsible for

117

118

Cyber-offenses, College

reporting crimes and maintaining the neighborhood watch (which is a related program). Major law enforcement organizations support these efforts, including agencies such as the U.S. Marshals Service, the FBI, the Metro Police, and Scotland Yard. Around the globe, tip lines have been extensively advertised, with use of the well-known 1-800-SPEAK-UP number mushrooming after the rash of school shootings in the United States and in other areas with high crime rates. Crime Stoppers initiated Scholastic Crime Stoppers in-school programs in Boulder, Colorado, in 1983. The focus of the school-based program ranges from middle schools to colleges, and it provides directives and guidance for students who may learn of a crime committed in the school or near it. Although schools are quite safe environments, Scholastic Crime Stoppers encourages anonymous reporting of school crime: thefts, damaging property, threats of violence, drug use or dealing, and weapons. More recently, it has urged reporting of students who indicate they have plans for hurting teachers or students. In addition to establishing hotlines, schools have initiated their own reporting methods, including commercial computer/cell-phone messaging systems called “Talk About It” that are used in hundreds of schools. In addition, other software uses global alert systems for text messaging, and automated emails are a commonplace community and school safety measure used in the United States. Crime Stoppers has been a solid success in solving crime and deterring violence in communities and schools in many countries. James Steinberg Further Reading Aryani, G., Alsabrook, C., & Garrett, Terry D. (2001). Scholastic Crime Stoppers. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 70(9), 1.

Cyber-offenses, College On July 29, 2008, a student at Georgia Highlands College was charged with hacking into his school’s computer system to change grades and steal other students’ and professors’ passwords. According to police authorities, Christopher Fowler used the login credentials of one of the school’s professors to access the school’s computer network. He also allegedly hacked the school’s VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) telephone system. Police investigators determined that Fowler obtained a password from a math professor by setting up a keystroke logger on the professor’s computer. On November 17, 2008, Kentucky law enforcement authorities arrested Sungkook Kim, a college student at the University of the Cumberlands, for

Cyber-offenses, College

allegedly hacking into his fellow students’ email accounts and attempting to blackmail them with personal information he obtained in this way. Police investigators were able to determine that Kim pirated another person’s wireless router to send the threatening emails and that he had installed spyware on college library computers to capture logon IDs and passwords for students and faculty. As usage of wireless networks increases in universities (60.1% of public universities, 70% of private research universities, and almost 45% of community colleges have such networks), these types of cyber-offenses have become common occurrences on college campuses across the country. Research on such offenses is conducted by the Campus Computing Project, a top-tier research entity that provides data regarding information technology (IT) on U.S. colleges, and Educational Security Incidents (ESI), an online research repository that collects data on security incidents in higher educational institutions. The number of losses and unauthorized disclosures of data has increased dramatically along with the number of colleges and universities affected, with larger universities becoming bigger targets of cyber-offenses due to their massive output of computergenerated information. The total number of reported cyber-related offenses rose 67.5% to 139 incidents in 2007, affecting 112 college campuses across the country—a 72.3% jump from 2006. Physical theft of computers is also on the rise. Incidents of stolen computers were reported by 17.1% of college campuses, an increase from 13.5% in 2005. The most common types of cyber-related offenses at college campuses tend to involve the release of information to unknown or unauthorized individuals, specifically from university IT personnel, with hacker-related offenses declining in the last several years. In fact, university employees are responsible for 47% of these types of cyber-related incidents, outnumbering outside hacker-style breaches by about 2 to 1. Although 2006–07 data shows that cyber-offenses involving social networking sites such as Facebook continue to increase annually (13%), network security is considered to be one of the greatest challenges facing college campuses across the United States. Personal information data, including names, addresses, birth dates, and Social Security numbers, from students and faculty members alike are the target of many of the breaches. More than 1 million numbers were disclosed, stolen, or lost in 103 separate cyber-related incidents on college campuses in 2007, according to the ESI. The largest increase came in disclosures of “educational” data, such as grades, which were involved in 30 cyber-related incidents in 2007 compared to only one in 2006. To combat cyber-related offenses, legislation such as the Cyber Crime Act of 2007 and the Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008 has been enacted. The provisions of the Cyber Crime Act criminalize any threat to damage a computer network or disclose confidential information illegally obtained from a network; criminalize online conduct that causes damage to a large number of

119

120

Cyber-offenses, High School

computers; prohibit the creation of a botnet, which a criminal could use to attack online businesses and other computer networks; permit law enforcement to seize computer equipment and other property used to perpetrate computer crimes; and authorize the U.S. Sentencing Commission to update its guidelines to reflect the severity of Internet crimes. College campuses across the United States have also begun increasing their own cyber-security efforts in an effort to protect their networks from virtual threats. More than 44% of college campuses have a plan for network disaster recovery, according to the Campus Computing Project. Sixty-three percent of institutions had assessed their campus IT security risk in 2005, compared to 58% last year. Almost 60% have a plan for responding to hackers or data losses to the campus network infrastructure. In fact, 82.9% of college campuses have policies that discourage or discipline students who illegally download music and 29.1% use blocking technology of some kind. Tony Gaskew Further Reading Campus Computing Project. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.campuscomputing .net/ Educational Security Incidents. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.adamdodge.com/ esi/year_review_2007 Guess, A. (2008). Data breaches hit more campuses. Retrieved from http://www .insidehighered.com/news/2008/02/12/breach How ready are IT managers for a crisis. (2007). Retrieved from http://www .insidehighered.com/news/2007/10/24/computing

Cyber-offenses, High School In the 1990s, when the Internet first gained a public face, it belonged to adults. In most cases, a home had only one computer that all family members shared, with adults being the primary users. In recent years, however, with the introduction of a wide variety of new products linking to the web and the vast collection of social networking groups that exist online, a new group has come to rule the Internet— teenagers. Many parents are worried by the idea of predators creeping around on the Internet hunting for their teens. The reality is that they have far more to worry about when it comes to cyber-offenses and their children. Rather than focusing on how strangers may be interacting with teenagers on the Internet, adults perhaps should be more concerned with how teens are interacting with one another on the web.

Cyber-offenses, High School

Adults may be surprised to learn that the threat of predators online is exaggerated and misunderstood. For the vast majority of youths who have contact with a stranger on the Internet, the contact with that individual occurs because the teen sought out the interaction, at least in the beginning. Most teenagers know, without any doubt, not to give out personal contact information to strangers over the web. According to Frontline producer Rachel Dretzin, who filmed Growing Up Online, a documentary that follows teens through their experiences with the Internet, she and her crew had trouble contacting teens online while doing their research for the film. “Most kids we approached were suspicious and loath to respond to requests for an interview over the phone. We tried everything—links to our Web site, offers to send copies of films we had made—but kids are conditioned not to talk to strangers online. It was oddly reassuring,” Dretzin said in an interview with Frontline. With networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube, teenagers today spend far more time expressing themselves and learning about one another than ever before. The availability of Internet access on cell phones makes it possible for teens to always be connected. Electronic hangouts have simply replaced real ones, physical friendships have been reduced to buddy lists and “top friends” on social networking sites and instant messengers, and face-to-face conversations and confrontations barely exist with the availability of text messaging and email. Without the burden of actually having to see the people whom they are speaking and interacting with, teenagers are far more open in these new electronic environments and relationships. It is simply easier for them to present themselves in a riskier light on the web than it is in the physical world. According to John Grohol, an expert in online psychology issues, “The online disinhibition effect, the phenomenon that prompts people to say and do things in cyberspace that they wouldn’t ordinarily say in the real world, is strongly at work here.” Grohol notes that almost one-fourth of teens have admitted that technology causes them to be more forward than they normally would be. A study done on Grohol’s website, PsychCentral.com, shows that one in five teens is likely to use a cell phone and online technology to send sexually explicit pictures of himself or herself to others. What may seem more surprising is that most teens admit to knowing that this type of behavior is likely to result in serious consequences, but they choose to participate in such risky interactions anyway. Teenagers are aware of the ease with which someone is able to save photographs on a cell phone and computer, and then share those images with others, as a majority of them who have received sexual photographs have already done so. Also, while teenagers understand that these actions can end in horribly embarrassing situations, such as damaged reputations around school, they do not seem to be thinking about the more serious consequences that can occur later in life, such as these explicit photographs surfacing at a college or professional job interview.

121

122

Cyber-offenses, High School

The practice of sending sexually explicit images through text messaging and emailing has become so popular that the act has earned its own name—“sexting.” This offense can result in far more than just embarrassment, and even more than the loss of a prospective job or position at a college: Sexting can end in charges of child pornography. It is illegal under federal and state child-pornography laws to create explicit photos of a minor, possess them, or distribute them. These laws were originally drafted to address adult abuse of minors, but they do not exempt minors, even if the photos they are creating and distributing are of themselves. Thus teenagers may find themselves in extremely bad situations after taking part in sexting, even though it might seem to be normal behavior among their peer group. Decades ago, a child’s home served as a safe haven from bullying and the vicious gossip that exists in schools. Today, with the Internet so widely available in homes, problems at school often follow teenagers into their homes, to their bedrooms, living rooms, and family offices. Because teens are always in contact, so are the rumors, and so are the bullies or people starting the rumors. Cyberbullying is perhaps the most common danger that teenagers face on the Internet. Reports from a 2008 study published in The Journal of School Health show that 75% of teens have been bullied online, but only 10% have reported the problem to their parents or other adults. Cyberbullying can involve taunting messages; threatening emails; the posting of embarrassing photos or videos on social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube; or harassing text messages. Bullying on the Internet is extremely similar to the bullying that goes on in schools. For the aggressor, however, it is much easier to attack someone anonymously, or from behind a computer screen, than it is to attack someone in person. This anonymity also allows the faceless aggressor to be more cruel, and the victim to be left more confused and without any kind of certainty of the attacker’s identify. According to the Journal of Adolescent Health, even if “the majority of kids who are harassed online aren’t physically bothered in person, the cyber-bully still takes a heavy emotional toll on her victims. Kids who are tormented online are more likely to get a detention or be suspended, skip school and experience emotional distress.” In recent years, this emotional distress has even led some teenagers to commit suicide. Many parents and other adults continue to perceive bullying as something that involves only physical contact, which makes it more difficult for them to recognize the psychological bullying that is happening virtually. While suicide represents the most severe outcome of the decline in health and mental wellness that may occur when dealing with teens and Internet offenses, several notable studies have shown that teenagers are greatly affected in other ways, too. An article entitled “Texting Until Their Thumbs Hurt,” which appeared in The New York Times, states that in 2008, teenagers received approximately 2,272 text messages per month, on average 80 messages per day. According to

Cyber-offenses, High School

physicians, this nonstop communication is leading teenagers to anxiety, distraction in school, stress injuries, sleep deprivation, and failing grades. The World Wide Web has allowed teenagers to realize a new kind of independence. Teens who have early curfews and strict parents have the ability to stay out all night in virtual hangout spots, and those who have lenient parents can find infinite freedom online. The dangers of the Internet seem to revolve around poor choices, not predators or lunatics who prey on innocent teen users. Because teenagers are the new rulers of the web, it is up to them to make smarter decisions about how they portray and treat themselves, and how they portray and treat others. Sheena Vega Further Reading Dretzin, R. (Writer); Maggio, J., & Dretzin, R. (Directors). (2008). Growing up online. Frontline. Public Broadcasting System. Grohol, J. M. (2009, January 6). Teens, sex, and technology. World of Psychology, 1-1. Retrieved July 30, 2009, from http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/ 01/06/teens-sex-and-technology/ Parker-Pope, T. ( 2007, November 27). More teens victimized by cyber-bullies. New York Times, 1-1. Retrieved July 30, 2009, from http://well.blogs.nytimes.com /2007/11/27/more-teens-victimized-by-cyber- bullies/

123

This page intentionally left blank

D Dann, Laurie On May 20, 1988, Laurie Dann (born Laurie Wasserman) shot and killed one boy and wounded five other children at Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Highland Park, Illinois. Prior to the attacks, she had mailed and delivered food and drink laced with arsenic (which she had stolen from a lab) to family, friends, and even acquaintances she had not seen for some time. Immediately after the shootings, Dann took a family hostage and shot one man before shooting and killing herself. Dann grew up in Glencoe, an affluent suburb of Chicago. She was the daughter of an accountant and his homemaker wife. By all accounts, Dann had a relatively normal childhood. She was described as a shy, withdrawn, but attractive girl. By high school, she had dated a number of males, although none seriously. Despite her poor grades, she graduated and began attending Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. After improving her grades, she transferred to the University of Arizona, where she was studying to become a teacher. It was there that she began dating a pre-med student. Although the relationship was fairly serious, Dann grew tired of her boyfriend’s possessiveness and incessant demands. To leave the situation, she moved back to her parents’ home and transferred to Northwestern University. She eventually dropped out of college. In the spring of 1982, Laurie met Russell Dann. He was an executive in a successful insurance brokering firm, and the two were fast in love. They married that September. Early on, things did not go well. Laurie began exhibiting very strange behaviors—leaving trash around the house, for instance, and she appeared to have obsessive–compulsive disorder. She saw a psychiatrist for a short time. Three years after marrying, Laurie and Russell Dann separated. Laurie claimed that Russell had been violent and abusive during the marriage, and in the month following their separation, the police were called to investigate a number of incidents involving the two. In April 1986, Laurie accused Russell of breaking into her

125

126

Dann, Laurie

parents’ home, where she was living, and vandalizing it. Shortly thereafter, she purchased a Smith & Wesson 357-magnum handgun. Laurie continued to do odd things and make strange accusations. She accused her former boyfriend of raping her when he refused to believe her claim that she had his child. In September 1986, Russell Dann reported being stabbed with an ice pick while he slept. He thought it was likely Laurie, but did not actually see her. Police refused to charge her, suspecting that Russell had inflicted the wound himself. Laurie was arrested once for making harassing calls to Russell’s sister, but the charges were later dropped due to lack of evidence. Laurie accused Russell of having raped her and of planting an incendiary device in her home. Despite having failed two polygraphs, no charge were filed against Russell. It had become clear that Laurie had some mental problems. She began seeing another psychiatrist for obsessive–compulsive disorder. According to this psychiatrist, while she needed professional help, Dann was neither suicidal or homicidal. Her behavior continued to be odd, however, and seemed to be deteriorating. In November 1987, Dann moved to Madison, Wisconsin, where she was under the constant observation of a psychiatrist. She had previously been prescribed clomipramine, a new drug for treatment of obsessive–compulsive disorder, and the new psychiatrist both increased its dosage and added a prescription of lithium to help address Dann’s phobias. At the end of December 1987, Dann purchased a .22 semi-automatic Beretta. She abruptly stopped seeing her psychiatrist in March 1988, and began making plans for her attacks. She stole library books about poison and some arsenic from a lab. Dann also shoplifted clothes and wigs and was arrested for theft once. Both her psychiatrist and her father tried to persuade her to enter the hospital as an inpatient, but she refused. She continued making threatening calls and, because at least one of the threats crossed state lines, the FBI got involved in the investigation. Leading up to May 20, 1988, Dann prepared rice-cereal snacks and juice boxes poisoned with the arsenic she had stolen and diluted. She mailed these items to several individuals, including her psychiatrist and Russell Dann. She delivered snacks and juice “samples” to others, including friends in fraternities at Northwestern University. No one became seriously ill, however, because the arsenic was quite diluted and because the smell tipped the recipients off that the food and drinks were tainted. Dann then went to the home of the Rushes, a family for whom she had previously done some babysitting. She promised to take the two youngest Rushe children on an outing, but instead took them to Ravinia Elementary school, where her former sister-in-law’s two sons were enrolled. Dann left the two children in the car and entered the school, where she tried to detonate a fire bomb. The small fire was quickly extinguished. Dann left and drove to a local daycare center, which she tried to enter with a can of gasoline. She was stopped at the entrance.

Dann, Laurie

Next, Dann took the Rushe children back to their home and offered them some poisoned milk, but they spat it out. She then lured them to the basement and used gasoline to set the house on fire, trapping the two boys and their mother downstairs The Rushe family managed to escape. At that point, Dann drove to nearby Hubbard Woods Elementary School and wandered into a classroom, then left. Outside the classroom she found a boy and, after pushing him into the restroom, shot him with one of the three guns she had brought. Another gun jammed as she tried to fire at two other boys in the restroom, so she threw it into the sink and left. Dann then went back into the classroom she had previously entered and demanded that all of the children move to the corner. The teacher tried to disarm her, and did manage to unload the Beretta. Dann pulled a .32-caliber handgun from her waistband, however, and shot at several students, killing eight-year-old Nicholas Corwin and wounding four others before she fled. Dann was unable to leave the area in her car due to a funeral procession, so she started running. She ran through the woods with her two remaining guns and entered the home of the Andrew family. Mrs. Andrews and her 20-year-old son, Philip, were home, and Dann told them that she had been raped and had shot the rapist. The pair believed her and tried to convince her to call the police, but she refused. Apparently they did call Dann’s mother, who knew nothing about what was happening and could not come to get her because she did not have a car. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Andrew arrived home and insisted that Dann give up the gun. Again, they called Mrs. Wasserman. When Dann spoke to her mother, Mrs. Andrew left the house and called the police. Dann shot Philip Andrews in the chest when she saw the officers arrive, although he managed to escape and was rescued by police and ambulance. Dann knew the house was surrounded, so she went upstairs to a bedroom. At approximately 7:00 P.M., an assault team entered the house. Police found Dann dead in the bedroom, having shot herself in the mouth. Although some of the victims sustained very serious wounds, all except Nicholas Corwin (the lone fatality) recovered. All of the children at the school (Hubbard Wood Elementary), especially those who were wounded, received special counseling. Many in the community went on to lobby for gun control. Philip Andrew ended up becoming executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. The Wassermans were criticized for refusing to be interviewed by police initially, as well as for not allowing access to their daughter’s medical records (they were eventually obtained through a court order). Some have blamed Dann’s behavior on the drug she was taking for her obsessive–compulsive disorder, which at the time was not approved for this indication. Others consider this case to be a clear-cut example of mental illness. In any event, this school shooting case is unique in two aspects: Dann’s bizarre behavior and the fact that she was female. Laura L. Finley

127

128

Dating Violence, College

Further Reading Eggington, J. (1991). Day of fury: The story of the tragic shootings that forever changed the village of Winnetka. New York: William Morrow. Kaplan, J., Papajohn, G., & Zorn, E. (1991). Murder of innocence: The tragic life and final rampage of Laurie Dann, the schoolhouse killer. New York: Warner Books.

Dating Violence, College Dating violence has been defined as the use or threat of physical, sexual, verbal abuse, or stalking within a dating relationship. This term is meant to encompass any form of violence that occurs in a relationship from an initial date to cohabitation. Dating violence occurs in both heterosexual and same-sex relationships. Although perpetrators of dating violence are often men, women also participate in various forms of partner abuse. Research has indicated that violence in dating relationships among university and college students is extremely common and, in fact, is on the rise. For example, in 2002, Leonard, Quigley, and Collins reported that approximately 30% to 40% of both male and female college students had experienced some form of abuse in their intimate relationships. Although some argue that violence in college dating relationships is often less sustained than in adult relationships, it is clear that violence in intimate relationships between college students is a widespread issue. Rates of dating violence are difficult to determine with any precision. This difficulty stems from the extremely low numbers of incidents of dating violence that are reported to police. Many individuals who experience dating violence keep quiet about their experiences because of embarrassment, self-blame, and fear. It has also been suggested that the general lack of understanding of the nature of dating violence creates some confusion around the labeling of abuse. As a result of this ambiguity, many incidents of intimate-partner abuse go unreported because they are not recognized as dating violence, but rather are perceived as noncriminal acts. In addition to these issues, some scholars have argued that because various forms of dating violence are often studied in isolation, it is difficult to formulate an overall estimate of the prevalence of dating violence. White and Koss estimated in 1991 that one in five to one in three college women experience physical violence in their dating relationships. In 2000, Fisher, Cullen, and Turner stated that one in three college women experience sexual assault by their male partners. These findings illustrate the prevalence of specific forms of partner abuse. Few researchers, other than those identified earlier in this article, have aggregated these results to estimate broader rates of dating violence on university and college campuses. Despite these many difficulties in calculating specific rates of dating

Dating Violence, College

violence, it is generally understood that dating violence on university and college campuses is extremely prevalent. Forms of dating violence can be separated into two broader categories of abuse: physical violence and sexual violence. Physical violence encompasses any form of physical intimidation or harm, including emotional and psychological harm. Although both men and women are perpetrators of physical abuse, as much research has demonstrated, women are most commonly the victims of physical dating violence. While physical violence can exist in isolation, it is often accompanied by various forms of sexual violence. Sexual violence can be defined as a nonconsensual violation of an individual’s sexual integrity. It can take the form of sexual harassment and/or sexual abuse. Other terms are often used in the place of “sexual violence,” such as “sexual assault” and “rape.” The term “sexual assault” is used within the legal system to define all attacks that are of a sexual nature, ranging from inappropriate touching to aggravated assault. Rape, a specific form of sexual assault, is defined as nonconsensual sexual intercourse. Within the majority of academic literature, however, the term “sexual violence” is used, as it captures a range of experiences and levels of violence. Historically, acts of sexual violence were not seen as forms of aggression. Instead, they were considered to be types of seduction. Rape from this perspective was seen as sex. The shift toward seeing nonconsensual sexual acts as violent was pivotal in sexual violence becoming a recognized concern within the criminal justice system and for academic research. Despite the widespread misunderstanding that perpetrators of sexual violence are most often strangers to the victim, sexual violence has been shown to occur most commonly between acquaintances, friends, spouses, and family members. As a result of this knowledge, the term “date rape” has been coined to highlight rape that occurs between individuals who are dating. Much academic debate persists regarding the proper language to refer to those who have experienced physical or sexual dating violence. Within the legal system, the term “victim” is always employed. However, within rape crisis and domestic violence centers, as well as in the majority of academic literature, the term “survivor” is most common. Among those who have experienced forms of dating violence, the use of “victim” versus “survivor” is often contingent on the way in which an individual understands his or her own experience. While some individuals who are targets of dating violence label themselves as victims or survivors, others struggle to see their experience as a form of abuse and choose not label themselves as either. Researchers have found that college women and men who experience dating violence often suffer from various levels of post-traumatic stress disorder, increased substance abuse, lowered self-esteem, and forms of cognitive

129

130

Dating Violence, High School

impairment. Dating violence has been shown to negatively affect the scholastic performance of university and college students who experience it. Abuse in dating relationships has also been illustrated to have harmful effects on other individuals besides the victim. In particular, friends and family members who are informed about the violence may experience severe distress. Many scholars have studied the causes of dating violence. Much of this research has focused specifically on the roots of male-perpetrated dating violence. Several scholars have suggested that participation in aggressive sports, beliefs in male dominance, and hostility toward women are all connected to aggressive male behavior within college dating relationships. Male sexual aggression, more specifically, has been discussed by some researchers as being the result of traditional notions of gender roles and a belief in male authority and control. Some researchers have argued that, in addition to these factors, the predominance of media highlighting sexual and sometimes violent imagery of women as well as the prevalent media representations of male aggression and female sexuality contribute to sexual violence within dating relationships. To date, little academic research has been directed toward female-perpetrated dating violence. However, within the work that does exist, scholars have suggested that substance abuse, childhood victimization, and relationship conflict all contribute to increased rates of female dating violence. Andrea Quinlan Further Reading Domitrz, M. (2003). May I kiss you: A candid look at dating, communication, respect and sexual assault awareness. Greenfield, WI: Awareness Publications. Harned, M. (2005). Understanding women’s labeling of unwanted sexual experiences with dating partners: A qualitative analysis. Violence Against Women, 11(3), 374–413. Katz, J. (2006). The macho paradox: Why some men hurt women and how all men can help. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks. Mahlstedt, D., & Welsh, L. (2005). Perceived causes of physical assault in heterosexual dating relationships. Violence Against Women, 11(4), 447–472.

Dating Violence, High School The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines dating violence as physical, sexual, or psychological violence within a dating relationship. It is a type of intimate-partner violence (IPV). In the United States, an estimated 5.3 million IPV incidents occur each year, and approximately 1,300 people die as a result of domestic violence.

Dating Violence, High School

Rates of dating violence in high school are nearly as high as adult IPV rates. In a 2001 study, 20% of female high school students reported that they had been physically or sexually abused by a dating partner. Another study in 2005 found that onethird of reporting teens knew a friend or peer who had been hit, punched, kicked, slapped, choked, or punched by a dating partner. Approximately one-fourth reported being coerced or forced into performing sex acts they were not comfortable with. Abuse is not always physical, however, More than one-fourth of respondents in the 2005 survey reported experiencing verbal abuse from a dating partner. Dating violence tends to start out very subtly, and teenagers often mistake their partner’s attention and jealousy for love. Ultimately, abuse is about power and control. It involves one party seeking to obtain and maintain power and control over the other. Early warning signs, then, tend to focus on controlling actions. For instance, teen abusers may try to control what their partner wears, who he or she sees, and where he or she goes. Unlike in adult domestic violence, studies tend to show that boys are almost as likely to be victimized in their high school relationships as girls, although the abuse tends to take different forms. Whereas girls are more likely to suffer from physical and sexual abuse, male victims endure verbal and emotional abuse as well as threats and harm to their property. As with domestic violence, the risk of serious injury often increases when victims attempt to end the relationship. In a Liz Claiborne–sponsored survey conducted in 2005, almost 20% of teenage girls who had been in a relationship reported that their boyfriend had threatened violence or self-harm when they mentioned a breakup. Technology can be a useful tool for abusers. An abuser may purchase a phone for his or her victim and then demand that it be answered whenever the abuser makes contact or require the victim to show who she or he called or received calls from. Many teen victims report receiving threats from their dating partner via phone or text message. Abusers may also use social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook to control their victims. Some make threats via these sites, or post embarrassing information. Victims of domestic or dating violence are not just at risk for injury and death. The effects of enduring abuse can be lasting, sometimes even lifelong. Victims of dating violence are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior, unhealthy dieting behaviors, substance use, and suicidal ideation or attempts. Dating violence victimization has also been found to increase the risk of involvement in abusive adult relationships. Many victims have a difficult time leaving their abusers. Often, they feel stigma and shame; as a consequence, they may tell no one about the abuse. Teen victims are especially likely to keep their abuse a secret. A 2002 study found that only 7%

131

132

Dating Violence, High School

of female high school students said they would call the police if they were subjected to dating violence. Teens are most likely to report such abuse to a friend, who may not be equipped to offer the necessary help. Sometimes teens feel as though they can help their abusers, so they stay in the relationship for that reason. Often, teens have never been taught what a healthy relationship is and, having little life experience with relationships, do not realize the danger they are in. All 50 states plus the District of Columbia have laws prohibiting domestic violence and many of the behaviors associated with dating violence, such as sexual assault and stalking. Some states do not use the language “dating violence,” however. Victims of dating violence can obtain protective orders from their abusers in 39 states plus the District of Columbia, although specific requirements for these court orders vary. In Florida, for instance, victims must have been in the relationship for at least six months and must have a parent or guardian with them when they apply. These limitations often pose a difficulty for teen victims. In many cases, dating violence occurs at schools. Abusers may make threatening remarks in school, may stalk their victims, and may spread rumors. In a few sad cases, abusers have seriously injured or killed their victims in or around schools. Some states have enacted legislation requiring students and staff to receive education about dating violence Both Texas and Rhode Island have this type of law, for example, and both pieces of legislation were passed after a female was killed at the hands of an abusive partner. Texas now mandates awareness education for students and parents, while Rhode Island has incorporated dating violence into the curriculum for all students in grades 7 through 12. Schools can help in other ways, too. Counselors can help identify warning signs and discuss dating violence and healthy relationships with students. Guest speakers should be brought in to discuss these issues as well. Having posters and literature around can also help teens see that they are not alone and find appropriate phone numbers and websites where additional information is available. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Associated Press. (2008, October 5). R.I. schools must teach about dating violence. MSNBC. Retrieved April 29, 2010, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ id/27035312/ Black, M., Noonan, R., & Legg, M. (2006, May 19). Physical dating violence among high school students: United States, 2003. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly. Retrieved April 28, 2010, from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/ mmwrhtml/mm5519a3.htm Burleigh, N. (2007, September 10). A high school student’s nightmare: Dating violence. People. Retrieved April 29, 2010, from http://www.people.com/ people/archive/article/0,,20060228,00.html

Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education

National Teen Dating Abuse Hotline: www.loveisrespect.org Teen Dating Violence Fact Sheet: http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/AGP.Net/ Components/documentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=38057

Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education On May 24, 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school districts can be held legally liable in cases of student-on-student sexual harassment, but only when the district was “deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment, of which they had actual knowledge, and that the harassment was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.” LaShonda Davis, a fifth-grade student, had endured a prolonged pattern of sexual harassment from a classmate, G. F., at Hubbard Elementary School in Monroe County, Georgia. The harassment began in December 1992, when the boy attempted to touch LaShonda’s breasts and genital area. He also made vulgar comments to her, saying, “I want to get in bed with you” and “I want to feel your boobs.” The boy continued this behavior in January 1993, and LaShonda reported it to both her classroom teacher and her mother, Aurelia Davis. LaShonda’s mother contacted the school administration. Other than the reports being passed along to Principal Bill Querry, no further action was taken by the school. The boy’s conduct allegedly continued for several months. In early February, G. F. purportedly placed a doorstop in his pants and proceeded to act in a sexually suggestive manner toward LaShonda during physical education class. LaShonda reported the incident to her physical education The attorney for LaShonda Davis, Verna Williams, teacher, Whit Maples. Approximately addresses reporters during the Supreme Court one week later, G. F. again engaged in case, Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, in harassing behavior, this time while Washington, D.C., on January 12, 1999. (AP/Wide under the supervision of another World Photos)

133

134

Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education

classroom teacher, Joyce Pippin. Once more LaShonda allegedly reported the incident to the teacher, and again Aurelia Davis contacted the teacher to follow up. According to Aurelia Davis, G. F. again harassed LaShonda during physical education class in early March; in turn, LaShonda reported the incident to both Maples and Pippen. In mid-April 1993, G. F. allegedly rubbed his body against LaShonda in the school hallway in what LaShonda considered a sexually suggestive manner, and LaShonda again reported the matter. The string of incidents finally ended in mid-May, when G. F. was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, sexual battery for his repeated misconduct. LaShonda suffered emotionally during the months of harassment. She was unable to concentrate in class, and her formerly high grades fell dramatically. In April 1993, her father discovered that she had written a suicide note. LaShonda also expressed concern that G. F. would eventually sexually assault her. During the litigation of the suit filed by the Davis family, it became obvious that LaShonda was not G. F.’s only victim: He was also harassing other girls in class. At one point, LaShonda and several other victims attempted to speak with Principal Querry about the abuse, but a teacher allegedly blocked them from doing so. Aurelia Davis claimed that, despite repeated conversations with teachers and the principal, no action was ever taken to end the abuse. At one point, Principal Querry even asked Aurelia why LaShonda was the only one complaining. No effort was made to separate G. F. and LaShonda, and it was only after she had been reporting harassment for more than three months that she was finally allowed to change her classroom seat so she was no longer sat next to G. F. Aurelia Davis also claimed that at the time of these incidents, the Monroe County School Board had not instructed personnel on how to respond to sexual harassment and had no specific policy on the issue. The Court’s ruling was only a partial victory for victims of school-based sexual harassment. While the decision established that it is a school’s responsibility to respond when alerted that sexual harassment is occurring, it did not require schools to take preventive measures to keep such abuse from happening. Given that sexual harassment occurs with great frequency, it is imperative that schools go beyond what the Court required to ensure a safe educational climate for all. In a previous decision—1992’s Franklin v. Gwinett County Public Schools—the Supreme Court also held that a district receiving federal funding can be held liable for abuse involving a faculty member and a student. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Davis, as next friend of LaShonda D. v. Monroe County Board of Education et al. Retrieved April 25, 2010, from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl ?court=US&vol=000&invol=97-843

Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine Attack on Ma’alot School

DeMitchell, T. (2000, April). Peer sexual harassment: More than teasing. International Journal of Educational Reform, 9(2), 180–185. Sexual harassment at school: Know your rights. (2010). Equal Rights Advocates. Retrieved April 25, 2010, from http://www.equalrights.org/publications/kyr/ shschool.asp Webb, D., Hunnicutt, K., & Metha, A. (1997). What schools can do to combat student-to-student sexual harassment. NASSP Bulletin, 81(585), 72–79.

Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine Attack on Ma’alot School In a region notorious for its history of wars and terrorist attacks, perhaps one of the most shocking incidents involved the attack on a group of schoolchildren on May 15, 1974. That day began with a school trip celebrating Israel’s independence day, during which 105 religious school students from Safed went for a hike in the country’s western Galilee region. After a long day of trekking, the students went to the Netiv Meir School in the area known as Ma’alot, where they laid down and slept. The group members awoke to find they were being attacked by three terrorists from the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP). At the conclusion of the events, 25 victims were dead and more than 50 were injured. The origin of this incident can be said to be rooted in the creation of the State of Israel, which inspired a sharply negative reaction from many of the new country’s Arab residents and neighbors. In 1948, in the weeks and months leading up to the date when the Jewish state was slated to become independent, Arab leaders both within and outside the territory coaxed the Arab residents within the borders of the future state to leave, thereby creating an open battlefield in which militant Arab groups promised to destroy the nascent country. Many Arab residents complied with this request, traveling to Lebanon, Transjordan, and Syria to await the Arab victory and the fulfillment of promises to give them the property and land of the vanquished Jews. At the end of what would be called the “War of Independence,” Israel survived, following an armistice. For their part, the Arabs who left their homes were forced by the aforementioned host countries to remain in refugee camps, denied both citizenship and the right to permanently settle there. Over time, a number of radical terrorist groups would arise from these camps, with most eventually cooperating to form the umbrella group called the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), whose charter calls for an “armed struggle” to conquer and destroy the State of Israel. The two largest factions within the PLO during its first decades were Fatah, led by Yasser Arafat, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a Marxist–Leninist group led by Lebanon-born Christian named Dr. George Habash.

135

136

Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine Attack on Ma’alot School

In 1969, a group of people in the PFLP led by Nayef Hawatmeh, a Jordanian Arab from a Malachite Catholic family, broke away to form a new terrorist faction called the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. A decade earlier, Hawatmeh had participated in a coup attempt that sought to overthrow the government of Lebanon. After that failed action, he traveled to Iraq, where he was imprisoned for his anti-government activities. Hawatmeh would eventually participate in revolutionary and terrorist activities across the Middle East before returning to the fold by joining the PFLP and then creating his own power base. Eventually, the DFLP began to engage in terrorist activities. For example, the group sought to overthrow the regime of King Hussein of Jordan. That failed effort ended with the deaths of many DFLP members (as well as members of Fatah and the PFLP), the destruction of the DFLP office in Amman by Jordanian tanks, and a shift in the group’s strategy from the destabilization of moderate Arab leaders to attacks focusing on Israel. The DFLP’s planning of the attack on the Netiv Meir School was both meticulous and sinister. The target was a group of schoolchildren who would be sleeping at the targeted location—a school that otherwise would be empty. as its facilities consisted of only classrooms and no dormitories. The students were participating in a program called “Gadna,” which stresses good citizenship, physical training, and endurance. Even today, this popular one week program is undertaken by most Israeli students. The team of three terrorists infiltrated Israel’s northern border from their base in Lebanon. En route to their target, their first victims were two Arab Christian women who were being driven home in a van driven by a Druze. One woman was shot and died instantly; the wounded driver succeeded in continuing to drive the vehicle to safety, where the other woman died from her gunshot wounds. The terrorists then knocked on several homes’ doors until one was answered by Yosef and Fortuna Cohen. Fortuna was seven months’ pregnant. The Cohens were shot dead, as was their four-year-old son Eliahu. Their five-year-old daughter Miriam was also shot, but survived. Unhurt was the Cohens’ 16-month-old deaf-mute son Yitzchak. Leaving the Cohens’ home, the terrorists asked a sanitation worker, Yaakov Kadosh, for directions; they then severely beat and shot Kadosh, assuming that they had taken his life, too. Before dawn, the terrorists entered the three-story concrete-constructed school and immediately took charge of the sleeping hostages. Screaming in Arabic and Hebrew, the terrorists demanded that everyone follow their orders or be killed. Seventeen students, the driver, and two army escorts managed to escape by climbing out the windows during the commotion. Several hours later, the terrorists, who set up explosives amidst the captive schoolchildren, released Narkiss Mordecai, a medic escort. She was given letters addressed to the French and Romanian ambassadors, instructing them to act as intermediaries between the terrorists and the Israeli

Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine Attack on Ma’alot School

authorities. The letters also demanded the release of 23 Arab terrorists and three people of other nationalities held in Israeli prisons. Among the latter were Kozo Okamoto, a Japanese Red Army commando who had taken part in the Lod Airport Massacre, a bloody event in which Okamoto and two partners opened fire with automatic machine guns in Israel’s (now Ben Gurion) international airport, murdering 25 people and wounding 70 more victims. The attack was a joint operation between the PFLP and the Japanese Red Army, the latter a leftist terrorist group that declared its goals as overthrowing the Japanese monarchy and overthrowing the world. The terrorists’ note declared that the school building was rigged with explosives, and stated that the Israeli government had until 6 P.M. (local time) to comply with the demands or the hostages would be executed. During the hours of that day, the Israeli Parliament, under the leadership of Prime Minister Golda Meir, held heated debates about the complex situation, including the difficulties of arranging the release of convicted terrorists within such a limited time span as the looming deadline approached. Public statements were made asserting the willingness to comply with the demands, although political pundits and analysts still debate their authenticity. Most importantly, the terrorists made it clear that they would not hesitate to carry out the massacre at the appointed time if their code word were not communicated back to them by their freed comrades upon their release and subsequent arrival in either Damascus, Syria, or Nicosia, Cyprus. After that, the terrorists’ note continued, the terrorists would release half the hostages and would fly with the other half to an unnamed Arab country, where they promised to then release the rest of the schoolchildren. The Israeli Cabinet agreed that this arrangement would never be accepted, although this information was not disclosed to either the public or the terrorists. As Israeli soldiers were put into place around the outer perimeter of the school, Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan personally came to Ma’alot to oversee the operation, accompanied by Army Chief of Staff Motta Gur. The initial negotiator was Victor Cohen, the head of negotiations from Israel’s General Security Services (equivalent to the FBI). Cohen had also been the negotiator with the Black September terrorists when they captured 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team in Munich, West Germany, during the Summer Olympics in 1972. Beginning at 9 A.M., the leader of the terrorist team began to appear at the window of the school with five students, firing his gun wildly and sometimes throwing live grenades, as he continuously threatened to begin killing hostages. One local man on leave from the army was killed by a stray bullet during these tirades. As the day wore on, Dayan became more convinced that only a military rescue operation could succeed in saving the hostages, as the terrorists continued to reiterate their threats of a massacre. Even so, the Israeli Cabinet continued to plan for the possibility that an alternative might exist in which the students could be released

137

138

Dhein, Alaa Abu

in exchange for the freeing of prisoners, as Prime Minister Meir refused to abandon this possibility. In the afternoon, the top three terrorists on the list were transported from prison to the Ma’alot area in preparation for an attempted compromise. It was proposed that the French ambassador would approach the school to engage the terrorists in a face-to-face negotiation. The terrorists rejected this proposal, however, stating that anyone who approached the school without the code word would be shot on sight. At 5:40 P. M ., the Israeli Defense Forces stormed the school. The terrorists opened fire with their Russian-manufactured AK-47s, spraying the captive schoolchildren with bullets and exploding at least one grenade in a classroom full of students before the three members of the DFLP were killed. The military operation was far from flawless, as some confusion ensued during the operation when Israeli soldiers entered the school from various entrances and windows, creating some amount of chaos before the mission was completed. Today, Netiv Meir School is still open as a school for religious schoolgirls. A memorial in its library commemorates the fallen students and their escorts who died there. Len Lubitz Further Reading Dolnik, A., & Fitzgerald, K. (2008). Negotiating hostage crises with the new terrorists. Westport, CT: Praeger. Pedahzur, A. (2009). The Israeli Secret Services and the struggle against terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press. Statement to the Knesset by Prime Minister Meir. (1974, May 20). Retrieved from http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Israels+Foreign+Relations +since+1947/1947-1974/28+Statement+to+the+Knesset+by+Prime+Minister +Meir.htm?DisplayMode=print

Dhein, Alaa Abu On March 6, 2008, Alaa Abu Dhein, 26, entered the Mercaz Harav yeshiva, a religious school in Jerusalem, Israel. Armed with an AK-47 and several magazines, the Palestinian Dhein reportedly fired as many as 500 to 600 rounds, killing eight students and wounding 1 others. An Israel Defense Force officer, David Shapira, then shot Dhein. Alaa Abu Dhein was from the Arab neighborhood of Jabel Mukaber in eastern Jerusalem. He reportedly worked as a driver at the yeshiva. Dhein did not leave a letter or other statement of his motive, but his sister, Iman Abu Dhaim, said he

Dhein, Alaa Abu

had been obsessed with the violence in Gaza. Only days before his attack, 126 Palestinians militants were killed by Israeli forces in multiple days of fighting. That attack had represented the Israeli response to rocket fire from a Palestinian terrorist group on Gaza. Dhein likely selected the yeshiva for his attack because it is identified with the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Before it became clear that Dhein had acted alone, several groups claimed responsibility for the attack. One group calling itself the Galilee Liberators Brigades—The Martyrs of Imad Mughniyeh claimed on Hezbollah (television) station Al-Manar that it was responsible for the attack. Group members stated that the assault was intended as retaliation for the assassination of Imad Mughniveh. Another group, Hamas, praised the attack, but did not claim responsibility for it, although the Reuters news agency did receive an anonymous call implicating Hamas. Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert denounced the attack and praised the good work of the yeshiva. Olmert also condemned groups like Hamas for celebrating the attack with parades in Gaza. Thousands in Israel mourned the deaths of those killed. A major concern in the wake of this event was the possibility that the attack would incite even more retaliatory violence. News reports suggested that some alumni of the yeshiva were planning an attack against a mosque in Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, although these threats were found to be baseless. However, Israel’s Education Minister Yuli Tamir was forced to leave early from her condolence visit to the yeshiva when she was kicked in the back, spat at, and verbally attacked by a group of youths demonstrating outside the facility. The next morning, Yuli Tamir threatened to cut off funding for the yeshiva. The yeshiva members also told Ehud Olmert that he was not welcome. Other groups acknowledged the sorrow of the incident. The Israel Football Association held a moment of silence before the football matches that weekend, although some supporters of the Arab team Bnei Sakhnin booed. Less than 10 days later, on March 17, hundreds of people attacked Arab homes in Dhein’s former neighborhood. For three hours, the activists chanted, “Revenge, revenge”; vandalized property; and clashed with the police. Despite a heavy police blockade at the entrance to Jebl Mukaber and a massive deployment of security forces in the area, the marchers managed to enter the village, stone residents’ homes, and damage several cars belonging to villagers. Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, condemned the violence as well. Al-Hayat al-Jadida, the Palestinian National Authority newspaper, put a picture of the gunman on the front of the paper and called him a martyr. In a poll taken two weeks after Dhein’s assault, 84% of Palestinians supported the attack on the Mercaz Harav yeshiva. Laura L. Finley

139

140

Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancements and Leadership

Further Reading Frenkel, S. (2008, March 7). Jerusalem buries student massacre victims. Times Online. Retrieved April 25, 2010, from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ news/world/middle_east/article3502365.ece Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2008, March 6). Terror shooting at Mercaz Harav Kook yeshiva in Jerusalem. Retrieved April 25, 2010, from http:// www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since +2000/Terror+shooting+at+Mercaz+Harav+Yeshiv a+in+Jerusalem+6-Mar -2008.htm

Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancements and Leadership Through Alliances (DELTA) Program The Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancements and Leadership Through Alliances (DELTA) program was established and is run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It emerged from the Family Violence Prevention Services Act (FVPSA), which authorizes CDC to distribute federal funds to support coordinated community responses (CCRs) that address domestic and dating violence, or what is collectively known as intimate-partner violence (IPV). A CCR is an organized, community collaborative that seeks to respond to and prevent IPV in a community. CCR members generally include community organizations, victim services, law enforcement, prosecutors, health professionals, faith leaders, and educators. Historically, these organizations have focused on providing services to victims, holding perpetrators accountable, and reducing the number of recurring assaults. In 2002, CDC established the DELTA program to focus on primary prevention—that is, stopping IPV before it can occur. Currently, CDC funds 14 state-level domestic violence coalitions. These groups provide prevention-focused training, technical assistance, and financial support to local CCRs. The CCRs, in turn, develop their own strategies for primary prevention so that they are community specific. Funded state-level coalitions are found in Alaska, California, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The DELTA program helps meet an important need, in that domestic and dating violence are among the most prevalent crimes. It is estimated that one-third of all women in the United States will experience some form of domestic violence, and one in three adolescent girls will experience verbal, emotional, or physical abuse in a dating relationship. The CDC, through the DELTA program, recognizes these shocking rates and has helped fund programs that address the interconnected issues of community poverty, violence, and inequalities.

Do Something

Although not all states receive DELTA funding at this time, CDC has partnered with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to help provide resources to the 36 remaining states that have not established state-level coalitions. State and community leaders in these states receive training and materials on primary prevention strategies they can implement when funding becomes available. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). The DELTA program: Preventing intimate partner violence in the United States. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/DELTA_AAG-a.pdf National Coalition Against Domestic Violence: www.ncadv.org Teens. (2010). Family Violence Prevention Fund. Retrieved April 24, 2010, from http://www.endabuse.org/section/programs/teens

Do Something Do Something.org is a website that has a wealth of information on anything that could possibly interest an American teenager. Its content includes information about celebrity teen stars, volunteer opportunities, human rights movements, daily news bulletins, and much more. Just as the name suggests, Do Something urges teenagers to be active participants in the world. In addition, the organization lends a voice to various causes around the country and in the community. Do Something challenges youth to act on the problems that face society as a whole, such as action and planning for schools to become more environmentally friendly, helping the homeless by donating used jeans, or sending letters, cards, or emails to support the troops overseas. It empowers youth to take action in a fun and interactive way. This website provides numerous ideas for action, ranging from something as simple as sending an email to something as complex as dedicating more extensive amounts of time and energy to larger projects of the teen’s choice. Whatever someone may choose to do, Do Something is a great resource to use to fulfill any community service requirements a student might need to graduate. “What’s your thing?” is a tab on Do Something’s home page that lists 1 different areas of interest. There are three choices relating to schools: Discrimination, Education, and Violence and Bullying. For example, if someone is most interested in school violence, clicking on this link brings up a new page that lists options related to child abuse, cyberbullying, dating violence, gang violence, gun control, hate crimes, school violence, and violence against women. The Do Something

141

142

Dress Codes

website puts a wealth of knowledge about multiple subjects at the user’s fingertips in an instant. If the user selects school violence as an area of interest, for example, one statistic that would appear is the following: “In the same year, students ages 12–18 were the victims of about 628,200 violent crimes at school, including rape, aggravated assault, and robbery.” Do Something also gives students the tools they need to help put an end to bullying and harassment in schools. This is accomplished by not putting the student in harm’s way, but rather helping other students to not become a victim. Probably one of the coolest things someone can do is to create his or her own Do Something Club. All that is needed is five friends who want to Do Something positive in their community or school. Groups complete a simple online application, and they have the flexibility to fix the problems that they see in and outside of a school environment with their own creativity. Do Something even provides grant money to support student projects. Do Something offers students a way to fulfill Mahatma Gandhi’s famous quote, “Be the change that you want to see in the world.” Natasha Abdin Further Reading Do Something: www.dosomething.org

Dress Codes Many school districts have enacted dress codes in the belief that they will help increase student self-esteem, enhance school unity, increase attendance and reduce dropout rates, and reduce violence—in particular, violence related to gang activity. The types of dress codes established by schools vary widely, running the gamut from simple prohibitions on specific logos or inappropriate slogans to the more extreme uniform policy. Many dress codes or uniform policies were enacted after President Bill Clinton encouraged them in his 1996 State of the Union speech. Approximately 14% of public schools required students to wear uniforms in the 2005–2006 academic year. Although parents often support these policies, research does not necessarily show that they achieve the desired result. Court rulings on this issue are also mixed, with courts siding with educators when there is a safety or sexual component involved, and siding with students who are expressing legitimate political views. Jane E. Workman and Beth Winfrey-Freeburg of Southern Illinois University found that gang-related headwear was the number one target of dress codes and uniform requirements, cited in 89% of the more than 80 school policies they

Dress Codes

Children in uniform leave school at the end of the day. Although the evidence supporting the increased academic benefit from this policy is not solid, many people believe that school uniforms are good for the learning environment. (Monkey Business Images/Dreamstime.com)

reviewed in 2006. Because gangs can be highly creative in adopting signs and colors, some dress codes are minutely detailed. For instance, some school districts prohibit “do rags” or handkerchiefs, as they have been used for gangs to identify members. Likewise, some schools have prohibited the wearing of anything red or blue, as they are typical gang colors. Complying with these rules can be difficult for both students and parents, who have to be aware of the specific requirements. Such policies are also problematic for the educators who must enforce them. A different problem is related to sexually provocative clothing. One notable trend in school policies is banning of clothing that shows the “three B’s”: breasts, bellies, or bottoms. The attire of female students in particular is often heavily influenced by popular culture, which repeatedly shows images of barely clad women. Parents tend to favor school dress codes. The most frequent argument they make in support of these policies is that such rules make it easier to get students ready for school and out the door. Parents also believe that dress codes help reduce other social issues in schools, as it makes it more difficult to detect which students have more money than others and thus lessens peer pressure. Some teachers believe that

143

144

Dress Codes

such policies help create an academic climate more conducive to learning, as students are less likely to be distracted by the inappropriate clothing of others. All dress code policies must meet the standard set in the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines, which allows students free expression as long as it does not create a “material or substantial disruption.” Of course, it can be very difficult to determine precisely what constitutes a material or substantial disruption. Judges usually side with administrators if a student’s clothing sends a violent or discriminatory message or if it advocates drug use. In contrast, if the clothing has a clear political message, the decision usually goes the other way. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) often argues on behalf of students in these cases. Long Beach Unified School District reported seeing a marked reduction in school disciplinary problems and violence after it instituted a mandatory schooluniform policy. Critics contend that other changes occurring in the school district could have been responsible for the reduction in violence and disciplinary problems noted in the California district. Other districts have not experienced this type of reduction, instead seeing an increase in students suspended due to dress code violations. A study of a nationally representative sample of eighth graders found that students who attended schools with uniform requirements did not differ from other students in attendance, attitudes toward school, or behavior problems. The biggest problem is that few of the studies used control groups and appropriate independent measures to ensure that the dress code or uniform policy was the cause of any change they noticed. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Hudson, D. (2010, January 11). Clothing, dress codes and uniforms. First Amendment Center. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from http://www.firstamendment center.org/speech/studentexpression/topic.aspx?topic=clothing_dress_codes _uniforms Johnson, A. (2008, October 18). Students, parents bare claws over dress codes. MSNBC. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/ 26875980/ Peterson, R. (2008). Fact sheet #6: Student uniforms. Consortium to Prevent School Violence. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from http://www.prevent schoolviolence.org/resources_assets/CPSV%20Fact%20Sheet-6- Student%20 Uniforms.pdf Raby, R. (2010). “Tank tops are OK but I don’t want to see her thong”: Girls’ engagements with secondary school dress codes. Youth and Society, 41, 333–356. Zirkel, P. (2000). Dress codes. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 78–82.

Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)

Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) The Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program was founded in Los Angeles in 1983. In this program, a trained police officer leads a series of classroom lessons for children in kindergarten through 12th grade about the dangers of illicit drugs, ways to resist peer pressure, and strategies to live a drug-free life. D.A.R.E. has been implemented in 43 countries and in 75% of the schools in the United States, reaching millions of school children each year. D.A.R.E. officers are selected based on their background. Those who have interest in and experience with young people are then provided 80 hours of specialized training that covers topics such as child development, classroom management, and teaching strategies. Officers then receive an additional 40 hours of training about the D.A.R.E. curriculum. D.A.R.E. has been held up as an example of community policing, in that officers are interacting in a proactive way with citizens. The U.S. Department of Justice has stated that among other things, D.A.R.E. helps communities by humanizing the police to young people, opening the lines of communication, and facilitating dialogue between schools, parents, and police. The D.A.R.E. website provides information for children, parents and caregivers, and officers about various drugs and their effects. Additionally, it provides information about D.A.R.E.-sponsored events. Further, the website describes the nonprofit organization D.A.R.E. America, which provides officer training and resources to communities to augment the basic D.A.R.E. program. Although D.A.R.E. has been widely adopted and is beloved by educators and police alike, research has not necessarily supported the contention that it is an effective means to prevent drug use. The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report in 2003 that assessed the findings from six long-term evaluations of D.A.R.E. The report concluded that D.A.R.E. graduates were no less likely to report drug use than were nongraduates. Two studies found that D.A.R.E.-graduate students held stronger negative attitudes about drugs in the short term, but that the effect faded over time. The biggest criticism directed at D.A.R.E. is that the program has made drug abuse seem more common than it actually is. Faced with growing criticism, D.A.R.E. officials announced the program was being revamped in 2001. The new program uses a social norms approach, focusing on altering students’ perceptions of how many students use drugs. This strategy stands in contrast to the previous “Just say no” approach. Laura L. Finley Further Reading D.A.R.E.: www.dare.com DARE admits failure. (n.d.). Common Sense for Drug Policy. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from http://www.csdp.org/news/news/darerevised.htm

145

146

Drug Offenses, College

Zernike, K. (2001, February 15). DARE drug-resistance campaign, called ineffective, is being retooled. Common Sense for Drug Policy. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from http://www.mapinc.org/newscsdp/v01/n277/a07.html

Drug Offenses, College The frequency of drug abuse on college campuses is alarming. An appalling 43.5% of college freshmen reported having become heavy drinkers in their first year of college in 2004 alone. An estimated 1,700 college students die from alcohol-related activities each year. On an annual basis, 19% of college students report having had a serious altercation with an intoxicated person, 19.5% report having been the victims of unwanted sexual advancements from an intoxicated person, 8.7% reporting having been physically assaulted by an intoxicated person, and 1% report having been raped by intoxicated students. These statistics represent only some of the detrimental effects of alcohol on college campuses across the United States. Unfortunately, alcohol is just one of many substances that college students are abusing. According to Joseph Califano, President of Columbia University’s National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA), the group’s 2007 study concluded that nearly one-fourth of all full-time college students have a substance abuse problem meeting the medical criteria for addiction. Researchers with the Office of National Drug Control Policy suggest that these drug addictions reflect the “gateway drug theory” in action. Gateway drugs consist of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. According to the theory, use of these “gateway” drugs encourages experimenters to try more dangerous drugs, both illegal and prescription. CASA’s findings that 50% of college students both binge drink and take part in using and abusing illegal and prescription drugs seem to support the theory. In response to these findings, CASA released a statement emphasizing the urgency of the problem. Its study concluded that alcohol and drug abuse occur at higher rates on college campuses than they do among members of the general public. In response, agencies that deal with the effects of drug abuse, whether they are governmental, collegial, or social agencies, have all called for more concerted efforts on college campuses to prevent and reduce drug abuse. Drug abuse is defined as a habit of using drugs to change one’s mood, emotional state, or state of consciousness. Prescription drug abuse is defined as the use of a prescription drug by someone other than the patient for whom it is prescribed or at a dosage that is inconsistent with the prescribed amount. It follows, then, that illegal drug abuse is the habitual use of illegal drugs to alter one’s state. While no age, race, or gender is immune to falling into dependency on drugs and alcohol, some patterns within the realms of race and age do exist. According

Drug Offenses, College

to a study by CASA, Caucasian students are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. When asked why students turn to drugs, CASA’s Califano replied that most do so as a means of relaxing and coping with stress. The most commonly abused substance by far is alcohol. Almost half of all fulltime college students (approximately 5.4 million people) binge drink at least once per month. Binge drinking is generally defined as consuming four or more drinks in an hour. In a 2007 study conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, young adults between the ages of 18 and 25 were found to have increased their use of prescription drugs since 2006. College students, according to the U.S. Department of Education’s Higher Learning Center, use prescription drugs for a number of reasons. Some say these drugs help them concentrate when they are rushing to write papers or cramming for tests. Many use them as selfmedications to treat their anxiety or depression. Others use such drugs to boost their performance in the athletic arena. Because they are prescribed drugs, many college students feel that prescription drugs are a safe way to stimulate their brains to work at maximum capacity. Use of both prescription drugs and marijuana by college students has increased since the mid-1990s. In 2005, 4% of the nation’s college students admitted to smoking marijuana at least 20 days in a month’s time. The most commonly abused prescription drugs are types of opioids, central nervous system (CNS) depressants, and stimulants. Opioids—which include such drugs as Oxycontin, Darvon, Vicodin, Dilaudid, Demerol, and Lomotil—are prescribed to treat pain. In 2005, 3.1% of students admitted to abusing painkillers. CNS drugs are used for the treatment of anxiety and sleep disorders; they include Nembutal, Valium, and Xanax. Stimulants are used to treat conditions such as narcolepsy, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and obesity. Stimulant drugs include Dexedrin and Ritalin. While the drugs listed here are not the only drugs used to treat these conditions, they are the most commonly abused prescription drugs on campuses. Although students may feel safe when taking these opioids and CNS drugs, long-term use of these agents carries a high risk of becoming physically dependent and addicted to them. Individuals who abuse stimulants are at risk of developing paranoia, dangerously high body temperatures, and irregular heartbeats. A host of myths have sprung up surrounding the use of illegal drugs. For example, many students believe that marijuana is a virtually safe drug. In reality, marijuana can be harmful in both the short and long term. Short-term effects of marijuana include memory loss, distorted perception, trouble with thinking and problem solving, and anxiety. This drug can also cause neurological changes like those associated with cocaine, heroin, and alcohol use, and can produce an addicting reaction. Long-term marijuana use increases the person’s likelihood of

147

148

Drug Offenses, College

developing a drug dependency (not necessarily to marijuana) and increases the chances of risky sexual activity, poor job performance, cognitive lung deficits, and lung damage. Experts say marijuana interferes with memory and attention span. Some recent studies have suggested that this drug has an association with schizophrenia as well. The clearest indicator that marijuana may be an addicting drug is the fact that some heavy users have experienced withdrawal symptoms when they stopped using the drug for a sufficient amount of time. There is no “safe” drug to be addicted to. While some researchers have found that drug abuse rates have decreased slightly in recent years, all researchers agree that preventing drug use and helping those who have already developed an addiction is essential. According to Califano, two-thirds of U.S. school officials and administrators do not see drug abuse as either a priority or their responsibility to address, making intervention and prevention difficult. The attack on drug abuse must come from three angles—parents, school administrators, and, in the case of prescription drugs, physicians. According to CASA, three-fourths of students who abuse alcohol and drugs in college actually began abusing them before they entered college. The statistics on the abuse of drugs between the ages of 12 and 18 could fill a few essays by themselves. To prevent this problem, parents must get involved with their children’s lives. Moreover, when 43.5% of college freshmen are becoming heavy drinkers, it becomes quite evident that it is time for school administrators across the board to intervene. Whether that means setting up peer groups to help addicts and educate students, making sure sufficient information goes to students warning them of these dangers, or increasing security to decrease on-campus incidents of drug abuse, these officials must take action. As far as prescription drugs are concerned, the National Institute on Drug Abuse suggests that physicians should screen for drug abuse during routine examinations. They can also note any increases in the number or frequency of requests for medication, as such behavior is suggestive of a potential problem. No single organization, administrator, parent, physician, or student can stamp out the abuse of drugs on a grand scale, but each can make at least some impact on the problem. If all parties work together, they can help significantly reduce drug abuse on the college campus. Angelica Jones Further Reading Califano, J. A. (2008, June 18). Chairman’s statement: Accompanying statement of Joseph A. Califano, Jr. on non-medical marijuana III: Rite of passage or Russian roulette? National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. Retrieved January 13, 2009, from http://www.casacolumbia.org/absolutenm/ templates/ChairmanStatements.aspx?articleid=528&zoneid=31

Drug Offenses, High School

Colihan, K. (2008, September 4). Who uses and abuses drugs and alcohol? U.S. government survey shows patterns of illicit drug, alcohol, and tobacco use. WebMD. Retrieved January 13, 2009, from http://www.webmd.com/mental -health/news/20080904/who-uses-and-abuses-drugs-and-alcohol De Jong, P. W., & Ross, P. V. (2008, March). Alcohol and other drugs among first year students. Newton, MA: InfoFacts Resources: The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention. Drug abuse. (2009). Medical Dictionary. Retrieved January 13, 2009, from http:// medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Illegal+drug+abuse Leinwand, D. (2007, March 15). College drug use, binge drinking rise. USA Today. Retrieved March 8, 2011 from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03 -15-college-drug-use_N.htm NIDA InfoFacts: Prescription and over-the-counter medications. (2008, August). National Institute on Drug Abuse. Retrieved January 20, 2009, from http:// www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/PainMed.html Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2008). Marijuana use has many harmful effects. In N. Merino, Opposing views: Gateway drugs (pp. 57–66). Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press. Prescription medications. (2008, April 23). National Institute on Drug Abuse. Retrieved January 13, 2009, from http://www.nida.nih.gov/drugpages/ prescription.html

Drug Offenses, High School Broadly defined, a “drug” is any nonfood substance that in some way alters the physical or psychological processes of the body. As to the legality and availability of drugs, there is enormous variation in the regulation of the manufacture and sale of these substances. Some drugs, such as aspirin and caffeine, are readily available and may be legally purchased by anyone. In addition, some readily available household items, such as glue, paint, and aerosol spray cans, emit fumes that have intoxicating effects when inhaled and, therefore, may be considered to fit the definition of drugs. Some drugs, such as alcohol and nicotine, are readily available but may only be legally purchased or used by adults. Some drugs, such as codeine and Valium, are strictly regulated by the government and may be administered only with the authorization of a physician. Finally, some drugs, such as heroin and LSD, are considered to have no legitimate uses and are completely proscribed by law. With respect to marijuana, there is an ongoing debate as to whether it may be legally used. Although a few states (e.g., California) have enacted laws that allow marijuana to be prescribed by physicians, the federal government does not

149

150

Drug Offenses, High School

recognize marijuana as having any legitimate medical uses and considers the cultivation, possession, trafficking, and use of marijuana to be criminal acts. In general, the term “drug offenses” refers to any offense involving the illegal use of a drug. To provide a few examples, the possession or consumption of alcohol by anyone younger than the age of 21 could be considered a drug offense. The possession or use of a controlled substance such as Ritalin, Librium, Xanax, or Demerol without a doctor’s prescription may be considered a drug offense. Likewise, the manufacture, distribution, possession, or use of any prohibited drug such as heroin, PCP, or LSD could be considered a drug offense. In addition, the possession or use of an antibiotic (a drug designed to eliminate harmful bacteria) such as penicillin or amoxicillin without a doctor’s prescription could be considered a drug offense, but criminal justice agencies typically focus their efforts on controlling the illegal use of psychoactive drugs (drugs that alter a person’s consciousness) such as marijuana. The majority of controlled and illegal psychoactive substances such as alcohol, marijuana, and heroin produce pleasurable effects in the user by affecting neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine. The effects of such substances vary widely. For example, whereas heroin generates an intensely pleasurable rush accompanied by hours of drowsiness, methamphetamine produces high levels of energy and an increase in attention capacity. Although government agencies at all levels—federal, state, and local—have long utilized a number of tactics designed to eliminate adolescent drug use and keep illegal drugs out of U.S. schools, the reality is that a variety of illegal drugs are readily available in high schools throughout the nation and that a substantial portion of school-age youths use illegal drugs. Analyses of data from the 2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey show that more than one-third of high school students (38.1%) had used marijuana at least once in their lifetime when they responded to the survey, more than one in 10 high school students (12.4%) had sniffed glue or inhaled some other substance to get high at least once in their lifetime, almost one in 10 high school students (7.6%) had used cocaine at least once in their lifetime, and one-fourth of high school students (25%) had been offered, sold, or given a drug while at school. Similarly, analyses of data from the 2007 Monitoring the Future survey show that more than one-third of all 12th graders responding to this survey (36%) had used some illicit substance. In fact, analyses of Monitoring the Future data indicate that illicit drug use is higher among 12th graders than any other demographic group, including college students and young adults. Among the variety of illicit substances available in U.S. schools, marijuana is by far the most commonly used. Research suggests that school-age youths are more likely to use marijuana than any other illicit drug, including cocaine, hallucinogens, or methamphetamines.

Drug Offenses, High School

The good news is that research also shows that although the use of illicit substances remains a problem among secondary school students, illicit teen drug use has significantly decreased in the past decade. Whereas a substantial increase in illicit drug use among teenagers occurred during the early to mid-1990s, by the end of the 1990s the rates of illicit drug use had begun to decline. For example, between 1992 and 1997 the rates of marijuana use among high school students nearly doubled, but since then marijuana use among teens has decreased, as has the use of numerous other illicit drugs such as cocaine and LSD. Although the use of ecstasy increased among high school students during the late 1990s and very early 2000s, since 2002 there has been a reduction in the use of this drug by such students. Although teen drug use and the availability of drugs at school may have decreased, drugs continue to pose a threat in the schools. As noted earlier, research conducted by federal agencies indicates that roughly one out of every four students in the United States has either bought, been given, or been offered drugs while at school. The widespread availability and use of drugs by high school students negatively affect the school environment and the learning process. While under the influence of psychoactive substances such as alcohol, amphetamines, marijuana, and ecstasy, students may be unable to concentrate on their studies and may disrupt teachers and other students. Additionally, early experimentation with alcohol and illicit drugs increases the likelihood that a youth will drop out of school and may lead to long-term problems with substance abuse and addiction. Ben Brown Further Reading Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008, April 11). Trends in the prevalence of marijuana, cocaine, and other illegal drug use. National YRBS: 1991– 2007. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Dinkes, R., Cataldi, E. F., Lin-Kelly, W., & Snyder, T. D. (2007, December). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2007 (NCES 2008-021/NCJ 219553). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, & U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2008). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2007: Volume I. Secondary school students (NIH Publication No. 08-6418A). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2002). Methamphetamine abuse and addiction. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse.

151

152

Drug Testing

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2005). Heroin and drug addiction. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Drug Testing Drug testing has become a relatively popular means of addressing student drug use. Before it was introduced in the school environment, such testing was used in the military, in the workplace, and in college and Olympic competitions to see if athletes were using prohibited substances. At the college level, drug testing is generally reserved for persons involved in athletics and is conducted by the National College Athletic Association (NCAA). Proponents of this practice maintain that drug testing is a deterrent to drug use, that it is used to identify those in need of help, and that it ensures a safe and fair educational climate and/or athletic field. Critics assert that research does not support the purported deterrent effect.

Vials from the National Center for Drug Free Sport contain samples that tested positive for drugs. The National Center for Drug Free Sport is the NCAA’s official drug testing laboratory. (AP/Wide World Photos)

Drug Testing

Further, such tests are vulnerable to cheating, not very reliable in their results, cost too much, and are invasive of students’ privacy rights. The U.S. Supreme Court first ruled on the constitutionality of school-based drug testing in 1995 in Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton. In that case, the justices held that drug testing of student athletes was constitutional. The Court considered this practice a useful means to address student drug use and did not find it to be overly intrusive. This decision was an outgrowth of the “special need” standard for schools developed in the Court’s ruling in TLO v. New Jersey in 1985, which stated that schools must balance students’ rights with their special need to protect the educational climate. In 2002, the Supreme Court decided the case of Board of Education v. Earls. In Earls, the Court held that drug testing of public school students engaged in all extracurricular activities was constitutional. Hence the Earls decision represented a significant expansion of the rights afforded school districts in regard to drug testing students. Prior to the Earls case, approximately 7% of public school districts employed drug testing (5% for student athletes, with an additional 2% for students engaged in extracurricular activities). Estimates are that 18% to 20% of school districts employed some type of drug testing in 2010, a dramatic increase. Notably, the George W. Bush administration advocated greater use of drug testing, even arguing that schools should randomly test their entire student body. Some schools have enacted such programs, so it is likely the courts will again hear a case on student drug testing. Drug testing is not an inexpensive proposition. The cost of an individual test ranges between $25 and $60. These tests are not necessarily robust, and they are not always able to detect use when it has occurred. Conversely, they might detect use when it has not occurred (a false positive). The largest national study of the impact of school-based drug testing, which involved 76,000 students across the United States, found that drug use was just as prevalent in schools with testing as in those without such a policy. Another study found that athletes in schools with testing actually held more positive attitudes toward drug use than those in comparable schools without testing. Cheating on drug tests is quite easy. Students can take substances to mask their use, substitute someone else’s urine, or tamper with the tests. It is easy to purchase products designed to cheat drug tests, as many are available at local nutrition stores or online. Although the courts have not found drug testing to be a violation of students’ Fourth Amendment rights, critics maintain that they are indeed intrusive. Students may be embarrassed in the process of procuring a urine sample and in some cases have even been asked to urinate in front of monitors to ensure they are not cheating. The NCAA uses more robust tests for student athletes. This organization randomly draws the names of student athletes to be tested. It also ensures that test

153

154

Duke University Lacrosse Team Sexual Assault Case

results are sent to accredited labs and analyzed by experts, helping reduce the room for error. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Beger, R. (2003). The “worst of both worlds”: School security and the disappearing Fourth Amendment rights of students. Criminal Justice Review, 28, 336–354. Finley, L., & Finley, P. (2003). Piss off! How drug testing and other privacy violations are alienating America’s youth. Monroe, ME: Common Courage. Goldberg, L. et al. (2003). Drug testing athletes to prevent substance abuse: Background and pilot study results of the SATURN (Student Athletes Testing Using Random Notification) study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, 16–25. Hughes, T. (2005). Public student drug testing and the special needs doctrine in Board of Education v. Earls: “Just getting tougher.” Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16(3), 3–17.

Duke University Lacrosse Team Sexual Assault Case On March 13, 2006, members of the Duke University lacrosse team held a drunken party at the home of the team’s three captains. They decided to hire some strippers for the party; indeed, the team was known around the area for having wild parties. The two African American women who arrived were not quite what the largely white squad had expected, and reports indicate that the players berated and insulted the women, who had thought they were performing for a bachelor party involving older men. The women reportedly left the party, but then one returned at the request of a player, who apologized for his teammates’ behavior. She told police that after she returned, she was dragged into the bathroom by three men, who brutally beat and raped her for approximately 30 minutes. The university and police kept the story quiet for the first two weeks after the incident, fearing outrage and a negative spotlight on the university’s highly touted team. By March 24, however, reports about the incident had leaked out, prompting outrage by many. The following day, demonstrators held a silent vigil near the lacrosse field, where the Blue Devils were scheduled to play the Georgetown Hoyas. Duke ended up canceling the game and, eventually, the entire lacrosse season. Duke’s coach, Mike Presler, resigned. The case had ignited a powder keg, as it prompted discussions of race (white men assaulting a black woman), social class and privilege, and athletes’ receipt of preferential versus harassing treatment. Later that spring, three of the lacrosse players—Colin Finnerty, Reade Seligman, and David Evans—were indicted on charges of rape, sexual assault,

Duke University Lacrosse Team Sexual Assault Case

Mike Nifong is escorted by supporters to Durham County Detention Center after being sentenced to one day in jail for contempt of court for his involvement in the Duke University Lacrosse court case in Durham, North Carolina, on September 7, 2007. The courts found Nifong’s actions and involvement in the trial to be dishonest and pursued for reasons of self-interest. (AP/Wide World Photos)

and kidnapping by Michael B. Nifong, the district attorney of Durham County, North Carolina. The indictments came after DNA tests were run on 47 members of the team. One player was African American; because the woman did not implicate a black man, he was not asked to submit to the testing. All of the DNA tests were negative. Fifteen months later, on April 11, 2007, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced that all charges had been dropped. Nifong was removed from his post as district attorney amid scathing criticism of his handling of the case, and was eventually disbarred. It seems that Nifong was seeking reelection at the time of the incident and thought prosecuting this case would assist him in his bid. All 33 lacrosse players were all given an extra year of athletic eligibility by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Finnerty moved on the Loyola College in Maryland and played for their lacrosse team. Seligman transferred to Brown University, and Evans graduated from Duke. In June 2007, the three

155

156

Duke University Lacrosse Team Sexual Assault Case

reached a settlement for an undisclosed amount; the settlement specifies that they cannot sue Duke University. In February 2010, the woman who accused the players was charged with attempted murder, arson, and several other counts after a fight with her boyfriend. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Associated Press. (2010, February 18). Woman in Duke lacrosse case is arrested. New York Times. Retrieved April 30, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/ 2010/02/19/sports/ncaabasketball/19duke.html Duke lacrosse sexual assault case. (2007, June 20). New York Times. Retrieved April 30, 2010, from http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/ organizations/d/duke_university/duke_lacrosse_sexual_assault_case/index.html Finley, P., Finley, L., & Fountain, J. (2008). Sports scandals. Westport, CT: Praeger. Leonard, D. (2007). Innocent until proven innocent: In defense of Duke lacrosse and white power (and against menacing black student-athletes, a black stripper, activists, and the Jewish media). Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 31, 25–44. Looking back at the Duke lacrosse case. (n.d.). Retrieved April 30, 2010, from http://news.duke.edu/lacrosseincident/

E Educational Programs and Training, College The shootings at Jonesboro, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and other high schools and universities have shaken Americans’ basic belief that students and staff are safe while at school. While the Clery Act of 1990 (formerly the Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act) requires schools to inform all students and staff of safety risks, it really addresses only ways that schools approach crimes that have already occurred. A more prevention-based tactic that schools have explored in response to the public’s growing concern for the safety of the country’s schools is an increase in training and educational programming. With the more current goal of ensuring that students and staff feel safe in colleges and universities, college staffs have the added task of providing safety information and preventive strategies. These programs address the issue of alcohol consumption, which can contribute to acts of violence; address the prevention of sexual violence; and strengthen campus housing staff to better prevent violence by providing alterative social outlets and to effectively handle crimes once they do occur. Problems surrounding alcohol consumption on college campuses range from underage drinking to drinking and driving to sexual violence. Many of these problems result from binge drinking, which is defined as drinking four alcoholic beverages in a single session for women, and five drinks in a single session for men. Given that more than 40% of college students report binge drinking, these problems are at the forefront of collegiate staff efforts to lower campus crime rates. One way to do so is to target groups known to abuse substances at higher rates than even general college students. Students involved in Greek life (i.e., fraternities and sororities) tend to binge drink, drink to intoxication, and drink to the point of blacking out, and use marijuana at higher levels than students not involved in such organizations. By investing in programs aimed at fraternity/sorority students, and at the campus population

157

158

Educational Programs and Training, College

at large, university staff can begin to address problems associated with student drinking. One such program that staff can use to help minimize alcohol-related violence is Alcohol 101, which is aimed at first-year college students who are either commuting or living on campus. It is carried out in different universities in a variety of ways, from required online reading and quizzes to presentations and discussions. One study examining the effectiveness of various alcohol prevention programs aimed at college freshman found that, when it is made voluntary, this program is accessed by students more often when resident assistants (RAs) seek them out specifically. Information is shared in a one-on-one setting. While this is a less effective way to provide Alcohol 101 to students on a mass scale, including students who do not live on campus, students who learn about the program in this way take part in it at higher rates than students who hear about the program in other ways. Getting specific information on steps to take with a person who blacked out from drinking, prevention of excessive drinking, and ways to reduce the risks of drunk driving, sexual violence, and other situations that can be associated with binge drinking, as well as provision of alternative social activities, is important in preventing school violence and related problems. Alcohol 101 programs reach students early enough to help them develop healthier relationships with alcohol, their new peers, and the campus. Violence within relationships—here referring to violence within any type of romantic relationship—is a problem consistently plaguing college campuses. Nevertheless, it is not as widely discussed or addressed as general underage and binge drinking prevention, or sexual health, including birth control availability, condom use, and sexually transmitted diseases. One program worked to address this issue after the campus counseling center reported an increase in dating violence cases. This program aimed to show how gender stereotypes heighten the likelihood of relationship violence, examine different forms of relationship violence, provide ways to avoid relationship violence, and increase the collective social interest in this issue, encouraging people to take responsibility for this social problem. Sexual violence, specifically rape, was addressed by one college in a prevention program targeting first-year college students. An experiment done on this program divided students into two groups. The experimental group received a more interactive program including a presentation and an interactive activity; the control group received only a presentation. The results showed that the students who gained the most knowledge were those who participated in the interactive activity and listened to a presentation. This and other types of programs addressing rape lessen society’s tendency to stay relatively quiet on the subject. The college that ran the previously described experiment reported that the most important issue in preventing rape

Educational Programs and Training, College

was clarifying what consent is. This knowledge could help a victim see that the perpetrator has committed a crime and realize that the victim may be able to prevent this person from victimizing other individuals by going to the hospital soon and being tested with a rape kit. It could also prevent perpetrators from going through with such a crime, by showing them the potential legal consequences they could face if convicted. From relationship violence to sexual assault, a broad spectrum of school violence along these lines needs to be addressed. One study examined the use of interdisciplinary task forces that bring together students and staff members from various student organizations, academic departments, and other groups on campus to study which measures are already addressing these issues and what can be repaired or added. One specific task force worked to improve campus policies, protocols, and services available to victims; develop more innovative prevention strategies; and provide faculty and staff training. The unified structure and pooled resources, power, and perspectives increased the university’s ability to achieve these goals. Such goals are made more specific when they are applied to the specific gaps in the existing programs, training, and services. Because so many students live on campus at some point in their college careers, resident hall staff members—many of whom are students themselves—are generally the first people to handle violent situations. Counselor-in-residence programs bring counselors generally housed in offices in health and human services centers to the residence halls and resident staff. They work to lower the high caseloads with which counseling centers often must cope, helping RAs and other staff to handle more minor problems themselves. They provide these individuals with the training needed to handle various situations, helping them develop the skills and empathetic attitude necessary to assist residents in crisis. Counselors who are part of these programs will be working primarily with residence life staff. The undergraduate student RAs and higher-level graduate student supervisors are the clients, receiving group and individual training so that they can better deal with a variety of issues, including violent incidents. By providing resident hall staff with licensed counselors, such programs ensure that particularly high-risk situations can be immediately handled by a professional, and they lighten the counseling center’s general caseload by engaging student staff to help with more minor issues. Coping with the many types of violence that college campuses must deal with calls for consistently effective programming. Such programs help prevent violence by working to reduce risky behaviors such as doing drugs or drinking to excess that increase the likelihood of violence. They bring students and staff together, pooling valuable resources to fund and carry out more innovative programs that will appeal to more students. With so many people living and working in such a small area, there is an ongoing need to diffuse stress and stay vigilant for potentially violent

159

160

Educational Programs and Training, High School

situations. The more focus that is put on increasing positive programs aimed at preventing campus violence, the safer that students and staff will be. Every program has the potential to save a life, prevent an injury, and open a mind. Meghan McHaney Further Reading Alcohol 101 Plus: http://www.alcohol101plus.org/home.html Can I Kiss You?: http://www.canikissyou.com/ Rawls, D., Johnson, D., & Bartels, E. (2004). The counselor-in-residence program: Reconfiguring support services for a new millennium. Journal of College Counseling, 7(2), 162–170.

Educational Programs and Training, High School It has taken several decades of research and worldwide media coverage of unspeakable cruelty, suicide, and homicide in school to bring school officials, law enforcement, school counselors, students, and parents together in a global effort to combat violence in secondary schools. In the United States, the recent spate of school shooting incidents in the nation’s high schools—for example, at Pearl High School in Kentucky (1997), at Columbine High School in Colorado (1999), and at Santana High School in California (2001)—has prompted teachers, school officials, and policymakers to address the issue of school violence more directly. According to the Wellesley Center for Women, although the incidence of serious violence in schools (e.g., homicide, weapon carrying, fighting) has declined by 4% since the 1990s, students’ reports of “less serious” (e.g., bullying, taunting) and less recognized forms of violence (e.g., date rapes) have increased in high schools across America. One study, for example, found a major decline in fighting and weapon carrying among U.S. high school students between 1991 and 1997. In contrast, another study found that between 1994 and 1999, schoolassociated violent death rates increased. Despite a recent decline in homicide rates in U.S. schools, homicide continues to claim the lives of many adolescents in high school. Moreover, “less known” types of violence, such as sexual harassment and dating violence, remain major problems among high school students and have serious consequences. Clearly, violence is a pervasive problem in U.S. high schools that calls for school-based interventions and preventive measures. The recent concern over violence and homicide schools has led many high schools to adopt “zero-tolerance” policies in regard to dangerous and threatening behaviors. Much debate has surrounded the zero tolerance approach, which was adopted by many schools in the wake of the Columbine High School shootings.

Educational Programs and Training, High School

Although it was designed to prevent and deter violence and misconduct in school so as to ensure safety and order, several researchers and politicians have questioned the punitive nature (i.e., suspension, expulsion, and arrest) of such measures. In conjunction with school-related policies such as zero tolerance, education and training programs for bullying and violence prevention and intervention programs have also been adopted in several high schools. According to the U.S. Secret Service, approximately 71% of all high-profile school shooters have been victimized by their peers and classmates in school, with these actions ultimately leading to the school attacks. Bullying has been found to be a major issue in the development and behavior of American children and teenagers. Many schoolbased bullying and violence prevention programs, such as the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP), have taken a “whole-school” approach by targeting not just the individuals involved (i.e., victims, perpetrators), but the entire school. The premise behind the “whole-school” approach is that everyone (i.e., students, teachers, school administrators, parents, and—most recently—community leaders) has a hand in preventing violence in school. OBPP, for example, provides education and training for students, teachers, school officials, and parents concerning bullying victimization and ways to prevent or intervene when students are bullied or harassed by their peers or classmates. Other bullying prevention programs include SafePlace, an expansion of Expect Respect Program, which is also based on a multilevel, multicomponent, school-based prevention program similar to OBPP. Components of SafePlace include classroom curriculum, staff training, policy development, parent education, and support services. Although these programs are not necessarily designed exclusively for high school students, they have proved effective for youths of various ages, including high school students. Recognizing the serious consequences of dating violence in high school, many high schools have also implemented dating violence prevention programs in recent years. Fantastic Four Guidance Department, for example, has recently initiated a dating violence program in an effort to increase awareness among high school students, parents, and school staff members of dating violence and to create a positive school climate that will promote healthy intimate relationships among teenagers. This program provides educational seminars, outreach and referral services, and resource information. Dating violence awareness programs for teenagers have also been implemented in several high schools nationwide. The Utah Department of Health, for example, established a Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Week to raise awareness of the problems and consequences of dating violence. This effort not only raises awareness of dating violence, but also provides education on healthy intimate-partner relationships. Other dating violence education and training programs include the Teen Dating Violence Program, which has been facilitated by the Needham Youth Commission in collaboration

161

162

Educational Programs and Training, High School

with Needham High School in Massachusetts. This seminar provides all high school students with a forum in which to raise awareness and increase understanding of teen dating violence. The serious consequences of violence in U.S. high schools, such as mental/emotional problems, suicide, and shootings, have led many school districts to adopt prevention and intervention programs that are designed to ensure a safe learning environment for high school students. Many of these programs, which adopt a multilevel education and training approach for students, teachers, parents, and school staff members, have been recognized to be highly effective in decreasing violence and promoting prosocial behavior among adolescents. Because school violence (i.e., bullying, fighting, dating violence) is a phenomenon that is influenced by complex relationships between the individual, family, peers, school, and community, it is necessary to initiate education and training programs that address multiple systems and are ecologically based. After all, it takes a village to prevent school violence. Jun Sung Hong Further Reading Anderson, M., Kaufman, J., Simon, T. R., Barrios, L., Paulozzi, L., Ryan, G., et al. (2001). School-associated violent deaths in the United States, 1994–1999. Journal of American Medical Association, 286(21), 2695–2072. Brener, N. D., Simon, T. R., Krug, E. G., & Lowry, R. (1999). Recent trends in violence-related behaviors among high school students in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Association, 281(5), 440–446. City of Needham. (n.d.). Teen dating violence seminars. Retrieved June 12, 2009, from http://www.needhamma.gov/index.aspx?NID=147 Dahlberg, L. L. (1998). Youth violence in the United States: Major trends, risk factors, and prevention approaches. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 14(4), 259–272. Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2007). Dating violence & sexual harassment across the bully–victim continuum among middle and high school students. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 36, 799–811. Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32(3), 365–383. Garbarino, J. (2004). Forward. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social–ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. xi–xiii). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Limber, S. P. (2004). Implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in American schools: Lessons learned from the field. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social–ecological perspective

Elementary Schools and Crime and Violence

on prevention and intervention (pp. 351–363). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Utah Department of Health. (n.d.). Teen dating violence awareness and prevention week. Retrieved June 12, 2009, from http://www.health.utah.gov/vipp/dating% 20violence/awarenessweek.html Whitaker, D. J., Rosenbluth, B., Valle, L. A., & Sanchez, E. (2004). Expect respect: A school-based intervention to promote awareness and effective responses to bullying and sexual harassment. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social–ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 327–350). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Elementary Schools and Crime and Violence The percentage of students being victimized at U.S. schools has declined in recent years. Specifically, between 1995 and 2001, the percentage of students who reported being victims of crime at school decreased from 10% to 6%. These numbers included decreases in both theft (from 7% to 4%) and violent victimization (from 3% to 2%). In fact, children appear to be safer at school than in their homes. However, school crime figures in California show that while rates of vandalism and other offenses dropped among elementary school students during that same period, “crimes against persons,” such as assault, nearly doubled. While the U.S. Department of Education keeps figures on school violence, most of these data do not specify the age of the child responsible. Overall, federal figures show that violence against teachers has dropped—in the 1999–2000 school year, 9% of elementary school teachers were threatened by a student, down from 12% in 1993–1994. As a reaction to highly publicized violent acts on school campuses, zerotolerance policies have been enacted in many school districts in an effort to create safer learning environments. Such policies may be contributing to the declining rates of school violence, but they have also resulted in younger and younger students being suspended, expelled, and incarcerated for behavioral issues. Some critics suggest that younger students are not actually becoming more violent, but rather that schools are simply focusing on and issuing harsher responses to disruptive behavior beginning as early as kindergarten. Some educators blame these behavioral issues on everything from rising rates of mild disabilities to violent video games to a bad economy, and some point to an increase in firearm ownership in the home. Federal figures also show that of the 3,523 children who were expelled in the 1998–1999 school year for bringing a gun to school, one in 10 was a student in elementary school. As a result of zero-tolerance policies, children as young as five years old have been arrested and sent to detention facilities for

163

164

Elephant

“offenses” ranging from throwing temper tantrums, to having scissors in their backpacks, to bringing a knife to cut a birthday cake to school. Boys are five times as likely to be incarcerated as girls, with children of color and poor children being at highest risk for arrest and detention. Experts urge parents to remember that fewer than 1% of all homicides among school-age children happen on school grounds or on the way to and from school, and they note that the vast majority of students will never experience violence at school. Many schools have chosen to institute anger management, peer mediation, and impulse response interventions to directly address social and behavioral skill deficits in elementary-school-age children that can cause in behavioral issues in the classroom and have taken other precautions to keep students safe. Some have focused on keeping weapons out by conducting random locker and bag checks, limiting entry and exit points at the school, and keeping the entryways under teacher supervision. Other schools use metal detectors to look for weapons. Intervention programs have also been expanded to include a greater awareness of problems such as bullying and discrimination. Doreen Maller Further Reading Indicators of school crime and safety 2003. (2004). Retrieved February 26, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/crime03/7.asp?nav=2 Managing anger at the childcare center and school. (2005). Retrieved February 26, 2010, from http://actagainstviolence.apa.org/anger/atschool.html School violence and the news. (n.d.). Retrieved February 28, 2010, from Kidshealth.org Southern Poverty Law Center launches school to prison reform project to help at-risk children get special education services, avoid incarceration. (2007, September 11). Retrieved February 26, 2010, from http://www.splcenter.org/ get-informed/news/splc-launches-school-to-prison- reform-project-to-help-at -risk-children-get-special

Elephant Director Gus Van Sant’s 2003 film Elephant was the winner of three awards at the 2003 Cannes Film Festival. The film was nominated for six other awards and won two titles. Elephant is a fictional story that depicts seemingly ordinary high school students Alex and Eric, who calmly plan and carry out a mass execution at their high school in suburban Portland. The boys are shown calmly watching Nazi films and ordering firearms over the Internet. They intricately plan the details of their

Emergency Response Plans

attack, planting bombs throughout the school, just as Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did during the Columbine High School massacre in 1999. Throughout the film, Alex and Eric are shown being bullied by jocks. On the day of the attack, they warn a classmate, John, who attempts to stop others from entering the building but to no avail. Unlike the Columbine shooting, the film ends with no resolution, rather than with the boys committing suicide. Except for the scenes of bullying and a shot in the shower in which the boys share a kiss (suggesting they were suffering from identity issues), Van Sant offers no specific explanation for the shooting. Like the idea of blindfolded people feeling an elephant, the film shows a variety of perspectives on the lives of so-called average teens. Some critics noted that Red Lake, Minnesota, school shooter Jeff Weise was a big fan of the film and asserted that it had influenced him in his decision to engage in a shooting rampage at his school. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Elephant: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363589/

Emergency Response Plans According to the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, there were more than 4,000 two- and four-year public and private institutions of higher education in the United States in 2006. More than 15 million students attend these institutions, and they employ several million faculty and staff members. These organizations are charged with not only providing education to students, but also ensuring those students’ safety and general welfare while on campus. Each college or university must develop policies, procedures, and strategies to ensure its campus is safe and to respond in a timely and efficient manner when incidents occur. The rash of campus shootings since 2000 has drawn renewed attention to the issue of safety at these institutions. Most campuses have convened committees or task forces to examine existing policies and practices and to consider enhancements where necessary. In particular, many have created special emergency response teams that plan, implement, and review crisis management activities. Higher education institutions face unique challenges when thinking about safety on their campuses. First, many college and university campuses sprawl over large geographic areas. Some have satellite or regional locations as well, and many now host medical centers, sports complexes, research facilities, performing arts venues, and even businesses, in addition to classrooms, offices, and student residence

165

166

Emergency Response Plans

College campuses such as Purdue University, pictured here, pose unique challenges when developing an emergency response plan. Considerations for the distance between buildings and the constantly varying student population need to be made. (Purdue News Service, Photos by Dave Umberger)

halls. Each of these buildings may pose its own set of challenges and require a different safety plan. Further, the campus population changes daily, so it is difficult to monitor access and to create procedures that keep the campus safe without infringing too much on the college or university experience. Additionally, campuses do not operate on a traditional business or school schedule. Classes may run at night and on weekends, events may be planned at all hours, and students who reside on campus are free to roam around whenever they want. Even when classes are not in session, students from other states or countries may still live on campus. Unlike corporations or even public schools, institutions of higher education tend to be governed in complex and democratic ways. Although this can be good in some respects, it may make decision making more difficult and lengthy than in a more hierarchical structure. While inclusion of all important stakeholders is recommended, it is imperative that colleges and universities develop a clean authority structure when it comes to emergency management. This effort must be accompanied by a communication plan that can disseminate information to faculty, staff, students, and guests in a timely and accurate fashion. Given that most college students are at least 18 years and thus are older than the legal age of majority, they are expected to be able to make their own decisions.

Emergency Response Plans

Campuses thus face the challenge of requiring adults to follow policies that may be necessary for safety purposes but may not be pleasing to students. K–12 schools, with their generally minor student populations, do not typically have to deal with this dilemma. The best emergency management plans emanate from the college or university president, chancellor, or provost. These individuals have the power and authority to devote the necessary resources to emergency management. This high-level support is especially important for financial reasons, as college and universities must make decisions within specific fiscal parameters that not all personnel or students are privy to. It is not recommended that these high-level officials dictate the plan without seeking input, but rather that they take the lead in creating an emergency management plan and team. To be truly effective, an emergency management plan must focus on collaboration and partnerships, both on campus and in the larger community. All relevant departments must be involved in the planning process, and external partners such as law enforcement, fire department personnel, emergency medical services, media, and local social services must be included. Although the threat of a campus shooter has received the most attention in recent years, experts recommend that institutions of higher education create “all hazards” plans instead of preparing for a specific type of threat. An all-hazards plan allows development of capacities and capabilities to respond to a variety of emergencies and natural disasters, including inclement weather, natural disasters, biological hazards, violence, and terrorism. Each portion of the emergency plan should specifically address how to care for vulnerable populations, such as those with language barriers or disabilities. Thus each campus must create a plan that is unique and specific to its size, geographic setting, number and type of buildings, composition of student body, and other factors. Simply importing another school’s plan will not be effective. Ideally, all faculty, staff, and support personnel will receive routine multiplehazard training that allows them to become familiar with the protocols and procedures of the emergency plan. Community partners should be included in the training as well, so that every potential responder is amply prepared. Role-playing exercises can enhance the experience and lead to needed discussion and adjustments. A key component of campus emergency planning is dissemination of the necessary information to relevant parties. Campuses must create a communication plan that allows them to share critical emergency information with students, such as where to go if a natural disaster occurs and how to evacuate campus if needed. General emergency management information can be displayed on university websites and on posters on campus as well as incorporated into student and faculty handbooks. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed a fourphase framework for planning and implementing an emergency management plan.

167

168

Emergency Response Plans

The four phases identified are prevention–mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Prevention focuses on decreasing the likelihood of a crisis. Mitigation refers to actions taken to eliminate or reduce loss of life or property damage during a crisis. To prevent and mitigate crises, campuses must identify all hazards that could potentially cause a problem. This effort might begin with a review of campus and community data, assessing the vulnerability of the surroundings and the facilities as well as analyzing recent crime data and inclement weather probabilities. If there are no existing reviews of this nature, it is recommended that campuses conduct them. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools has developed assessment tools and information for applying the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) program, which involves assessing the ability to see what is occurring in a particular location, restricting who enters or exits, and maintaining respect for property. Ensuring a healthy campus climate can help prevent emergencies as well. To further this goal, campuses can sponsor activities that allow students to develop healthy relationships and a sense of connectedness to the school. The preparedness phase focuses on designing strategies, processes, and protocols to prepare the college or university for potential emergencies. It includes development of campus collaborations and contracting with community partners to provide services. Plans should be coordinated with state and local entities’ plans, thereby ensuring that no duplication occurs. Further, preparedness strategies include assigning appropriate personnel and delineating responsibilities. The creation of a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) and a Business Continuity Plan (BCP) for all campus operations functions is recommended as part of the preparedness phase as well. The COOP ensures that the campus can maintain essential functions such as housing, food service, and transportation when an emergency occurs. The BCP addresses administrative functions such as payroll and communications, enabling them to continue in an emergency. Additionally, preparedness involves establishing a reunification program in the event students or staff become separated from loved ones during an emergency. It also involves the development of mental health counseling services for persons who are traumatized. During the response phase, campuses enact their plans to contain and resolve an emergency. An emergency operations center should have been identified and should serve as a central command center during the incident. Decision makers then move forward based on information gleaned from other members of the emergency management team. Ideally, colleges and universities will have readily available a copy of the emergency plan and procedures, communication equipment and phone directories, relevant blueprints and maps, a list of personnel and contact information, building security information, backup power and lighting, and emergency supplies.

European Union and School Crime and Violence

In the recovery phase, campuses assist students, staff, faculty, and the campus community as a whole return to full functioning. Necessary steps will include assessing physical damage to the campus and contracting for repair, utilizing the COOP and BCP to ensure needed services return to operational status as soon as possible, and restoring the learning environment. Although classes may need to be cancelled for a short time, a good emergency plan can help ensure the amount of time off is minimal. Finally, all those affected by the incident should receive appropriate counseling and services. In addition to the resources provided by the federal government, many private companies specialize in campus and school safety. For example, National School Safety and Security Services helps schools establish crisis plans that are specific to their unique challenges. It also conducts training for personnel on emergency planning and carries out drills to ensure plans are enacted efficiently. In addition, National School Safety and Security Services helps schools enhance their communication capabilities and work with relevant community providers. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Crisis response and violence prevention resources. (n.d.). National Mental Health and Education Center. Retrieved from http://www.naspcenter.org/safe_schools/ safeschools.htm FEMA emergency management guide for business and industry. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.fema.gov/business/guide/toc.shtm National School Safety and Security Services: http://www.schoolsecurity.org/ resources/crisis.html Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools Technical Assistance Center: http://rems.ed.gov/ Security on Campus, Inc.: www.securityoncampus.org Trump, K. (2000). Classroom killers? Hallway hostages? How schools can prevent and manage school crises. New York: Corwin. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe Schools. (2009). Action guide for emergency management at institutions of higher education. Retrieved April 30, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/emergencyplan/ remsactionguide.pdf

European Union and School Crime and Violence School crime, bullying, and violence are major concerns and pose an increasing challenge for European Union (EU) authorities. School violence encompasses a range of actions and threats, including verbal, physical, sexual and psychological

169

170

European Union and School Crime and Violence

violence; social exclusion; violence relating to property; violence relating to theft; threat; insults; and rumor spreading. Considering that violence is culturally and historically determined, a 1999 report indicated that the diversity of European cultures made it difficult to define school violence in a uniform manner and to make valid comparisons between different countries’ rates of school violence. Hence, it was difficult to ascertain whether school violence was on the increase in this region. Therefore, to develop a better understanding of school violence in Europe, and to devise more effective prevention and intervention mechanisms, there is a need to accept a multiplicity of definitions of school violence and to accommodate a range of cultural perspectives. Reported incidence of school violence varies widely across EU member states. In Denmark, approximately 7% of pupils became victims of violence at least once during the previous month, according to the 1999 survey. Countries such as Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, and Norway reported a 15% rate of violence among pupils, while Ireland and Spain were among countries reporting rates of violence in schools ranging from 15% to 30%. At the other end of the scale, 65% and 75% of pupils in Romania and Hungary, respectively, reported being victims of school violence. An important and interesting result from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), which included survey data from 37 countries, highlighted the fact that school violence rates were not related to general crime rates. TIMMS data indicated that rates of violence in school were related to certain social indicators such as absolute deprivation and age distribution, but did not reflect other indicators such as income inequality or social integration. Furthermore, school violence rates were related to school-system variables and the effect of these variables was independent of social variables. Overall, EU data and reports on school bullying indicate that: • School violence is an international phenomenon and not limited to one country. • Bullying is a major component of school violence throughout Europe, yet bullying is not a well-understood phenomenon in this region. • For victims, occurrence of bullying decreases as the age of pupils increases; for offenders, rates of bullying among boys show a marked increase with age, and are relatively stable for girls. • Verbal bullying is the most frequent type of bullying. • Boys are more often victims of physical harassment and bullying, whereas girls are more often victims of social exclusion. • At least 5% of pupils in primary and secondary schools are bullied weekly or more often.

European Union and School Crime and Violence

• Bullying by means of cell phones is increasing in Europe, where at least 15% of pupils using mobile phones experience bullying. • Overall, various forms of bullying seem to be increasing, including school bullying, cell phone bullying, and cyberbullying. EU countries have initiated a number of projects and programs to address the problem of school violence and its various forms. In fact, subsequent to the Council of Europe meeting in Brussels, Belgium, on September 22, 1997, and following the publication of the Council of Ministers’ conclusions on safety in schools, which called on the European Commission and its member states to enhance communication and cooperation so as to address problems and questions in relation to school safety and violence, the European Commission launched a two-year (1998–2000) “Violence in Schools” initiative that aimed to support a range of actions and interventions in order to prevent and tackle violence. These actions and interventions included a series of pilot projects and networks, in-service training, and the exchange of information and best practices approaches. This initiative was followed by one of the most significant projects funded by the European Commission in relation to tackling school violence—namely, the “Connect” project. This program, which was subtitled “Tackling Violence in Schools on a European-Wide Basis,” produced country reports in 2001 that aimed to provide a cross-sectional view of school violence in the 15 EU member states and Iceland and Norway. It highlighted important challenges in tackling school violence in the region, including the lack of comparable data in different European countries. In particular, the project’s findings included the following points: • Differences in the way violence was defined in various European states did not allow valid comparison between member states, or cumulative data aggregation at the European level. • Large differences were noted between officially reported and/or documented cases of violence and data obtained from self-report questionnaires and victim surveys. • The nature of data from different member states (e.g., structured interviews, victim surveys, self-report questionnaires, teachers’ reports) and an overall lack of systematic data hampered analysis of the problem. • A range of specific measures and targeted programs had been implemented, including individual work with at-risk pupils in some of the member states, such as Austria, Finland, Germany, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden.

171

172

European Union and School Crime and Violence

• A number of countries (e.g., Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxemburg, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) had established legal frameworks and requirements to prevent violence and bullying in school premises. However, without appropriate combination with other initiatives, such policies could prove ineffective. • A number of other initiatives had been launched to that point, including “preventive approaches to promote pupil responsibility and a positive school climate,” security measures (e.g., help lines, use of alarm bracelets, and video surveillance), whole-school approaches, and teacher training. • Overall, there was a lack of systematic evaluation of the various initiatives addressing school violence. Following this project, the Council of Europe sponsored similar themes in a broader initiative (2002–2004), entitled “Response to Violence in Everyday Life in a Democratic Society.” However, in their final declaration at a conference in Strasbourg (December 2–4, 2002), Council members stated that several tragic incidents at schools in Dunblane, Scotland; Erfurt, Germany; Barcelona, Spain; and Paris, France, had received extensive media coverage and had become widely known through media reporting; they noted that in reality the extent of such problems was much more limited and such incidents were relatively rare and rather isolated. The Council concluded that although it was important not to exaggerate the dimension of the problem, these tragic events were reflective of an increasing number of low-level violent incidents in schools and communities. Furthermore, the Council declaration pointed out that circumstances differed significantly between and within the context of different member states (in terms of the forms, contexts, and causes of school violence); thus there was a general need to devise and implement local and interinstitutional strategies to raise awareness, help prevention, and provide response to incidents of violence. In 2005, the Council of Europe launched an action program entitled “Children and Violence,” whose main objective was to assist with the identification and implementation of consistent policies to combat youth and school crime and violence. This project was integrated within the larger Council of Europe program “Building a Europe for and with Children,” which itself was a three-year program with two important stands—namely, promoting children’s rights and protecting them from all forms of violence. This initiative came in response to the Council’s mandate to guarantee an integrated approach to promoting children’s rights and well-being. The key concepts and central methodologies in this program were transversality, an integrated approach, partnerships, and communication. In fulfilling its objectives, the program relied on both the Council of Europe and its relevant institutions as well as outside partners to achieve sustainable change.

Expect Respect

The program’s strategy was subsequently reassessed and adopted for the years 2009–2011 by the Council of Ministers in November 2008. Claudia Megele Further Reading Building a Europe for and with Children: http://www.coe.int/t/transversalprojects/ children/default_en.asp Moore, K., Jones, N., & Broadbent, E. (2008). School violence in OECD countries. United Kingdom: Plan Limited. Ruxton, S. (2005). What about us? Children’s rights in the European Union. Belgium: European Children’s Network. Siegel, L., & Welsh, B. (2008). Juvenile delinquency: Theory, practice and law. Florence, Kentucky: Wadsworth. Smith, P. K. (Ed.). (2003). Violence in schools: The response in Europe. London: Routledge Falmer. Violence in Schools Training Action (VISTA): http://www.vista-europe.org/index.php

Expect Respect Expect Respect is a school-based program that focuses on preventing teen dating violence and educating young people about healthy relationships. It was created for schools in Austin, Texas, where it has been used since 1989. This curriculum, which is appropriate for middle and high school students, has also been used by domestic violence centers and schools throughout the United States. The Expect Respect program includes several components—school-wide prevention activities, youth leadership training, and support groups for at-risk youth. Support group participants are youths who have experienced abuse in the home or in dating relationships. Groups include only members of the same gender, and they run for 24 sessions and are delivered during the school day. Evaluations have found that the support groups offer an emotionally safe and supportive environment for their members, and participants report that they produce changes in attitudes and beliefs, knowledge, self-awareness, and skills in developing healthy relationships. Girls who participate in the groups also report a decrease in insecurity and an increase in their ability to identify unhealthy behaviors by dating partners. In addition, high-risk youth—those who have experienced physical or sexual violence (as perpetrators or victims) in the three months prior to the program— have shown significant decreases in emotional abuse perpetration, emotional abuse victimization, and physical/sexual violence perpetration following completion of the Expect Respect curriculum.

173

174

Expect Respect

Expect Respect includes three youth leadership programs: the SafeTeens leadership training for middle and high school students, the Heroes leadership training for elementary school students, and the Changing Lives Youth Theater Program for high school students. In an evaluation of youths who participated in one of these programs, 89% reported increased understanding of abusive and healthy relationships; 88% reported increased knowledge of how to help themselves and others; and 82% reported increased willingness to help others. School-wide plans include faculty training, teacher-led classroom lessons, parent seminars, display of materials throughout the campus, screening of videos and public service announcements, and projects and activities initiated by a team made of both youths and adults on each campus. Students in schools that have implemented these programs express less support for abuse and better understanding of healthy relationships, and more ability to identify abusive behaviors. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Ball, B. (2008, October). Expect Respect program evaluation: Executive summary. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from http://www.safeplace.org/Document.Doc?id=52 Love Is Not Abuse: http://www.loveisnotabuse.com/web/guest/home National Teen Dating Violence Hotline: http://www.loveisrespect.org/ Whitaker, D. J., Rosenbluth, B., Valle, L. A., & Sanchez, E. (2004). Expect Respect: A school-based intervention to promote awareness and effective responses to bullying and sexual harassment. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social–ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 327–350). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

F Fear of School Crime and Violence Although rates of school violence have decreased, the number of U.S. teenagers who skip school for fear of being hurt has steadily increased. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which surveyed 10,000 public and private high school students across the nation, 5.4% of high school students skipped at least one day of school in 2003 because of safety concerns. That proportion was up 1% from 1993. Yet the same survey found an almost 9%decrease in the number of students saying they had been in a fight the previous school year and an almost 6% reduction in the number of students who reported carrying a weapon on school grounds. Media attention to major shootings like the Columbine High School massacre of 1999 scared many students into believing this type of incident could happen anywhere at any time. The media often describe somewhat isolated or rare incidents as trends, which may result in people overestimating the likelihood that a similar event could occur again. Misplaced fear not only affects students’ attendance, but also shapes school policies that are intended to keep students safe. These policies, such as zero-tolerance programs, metal detector searches, and school police officers, may or may not help keep the school. Research is clear on one point, however: They are likely to increase students’ fear, as implementing these policies tells students that something horrible is likely to happen that necessitates such an extreme response. In essence, school violence has become a moral panic. Stanley Cohen coined this term to describe the reaction of media, politicians, and agents of social control (such as police) to youth deviance may or may not help secure the school. His initial work examined the Mods and Rockers, two groups of deviant youth in England. Cohen found these groups were labeled as threats and consequently were treated as such. Jock Young’s 1971 book The Drugtakers drew additional attention to the media’s role in constructing deviant identities.

175

176

Fear of School Crime and Violence

Cohen identified five stages of a moral panic. First, someone or something is defined as a threat to society’s values and interests. Second, the threat is depicted by media and repeated in easily identifiable ways. Third, public concern about the so-called problem builds, until fourth, there is some type of response from authorities or opinion makers. Fifth, the panic either results in social change or recedes. It is easy to apply Cohen’s five stages to the case of school violence. The 1980s and 1990s were a time period in which adolescents were largely viewed as problems. Even criminologists had warned of the emergence of a dangerous generation of “superpredators,” who were far more violent than any group of juveniles to precede them. Despite the continued decline of actual youth violence in the 1990s, news reports continued to focus on these “ticking time bombs.” For instance, Ann Curry introduced a child psychologist on her Today show and asked about the “trend” of students shooting one another. Vincent Schiraldi, the director of the Justice Policy Institute, then reminded viewers that three times as many people were struck by lightning as were killed in school shootings that year. Other national figures such as Katie Couric emphasized that youth today were out of control, echoing the theme that schools were a site, and students the cause, of a major social problem. The official response was to implement a series of punitive and technological strategies aimed at reining in the supposedly out-of-control youth. Thus districts invested in surveillance cameras and metal detectors and hired school police officers. At the White House conference on School Safety, President Bill Clinton proposed spending $12 million for Project SERV (School Emergency Response to Violence), to be modeled after the FEMA response to violence. Clinton also set aside $65 million to hire 2,000 community and school police officers and $25 million for districts to develop safety plans. The Safe and Gun Free Schools Act was passed in 1994, before most of the high-profile shootings occurred. It requires districts receiving federal funds to establish specific penalties for students found with weapons on campus. By the later 1990s, districts had used this act to justify the implementation of zerotolerance policies for numerous offenses, some going well beyond weapons. In most cases, students found violating a zero-tolerance provision face mandatory suspension or expulsion. Although this reaction might be appropriate in some of the most serious cases, zero-tolerance policies have been found to disproportionately affect students of color who have not perpetrated any act of violence. College campuses have responded in similar ways, albeit a bit later and less punitively. Since 1990, five federal laws and many state laws have been created to increase security on university campuses. These measures include the Clery Act— legislation requiring the reporting of school crime. As in the case of secondary schools, the results of these laws have been mixed. The idea is that parents and students have a right to know whether a given campus is safe, but the increased focus on crime may unwittingly heighten students’ fear of victimization. Experts recommend that campus officials gauge students’ fear of crime and violence so they can

Fear of School Crime and Violence

develop appropriate security measures, then create awareness campaigns that address the most concerning offenses. In both secondary schools and colleges, the moral panic about extreme forms of violence often leads people to fear the wrong thing. That is, while the chance of being shot in a school on a college campus is fairly low, the chance that someone’s property will be stolen or a person will become the victim of an abusive relationship is much greater. If media attention and school or campus policies focus exclusively on the worst-case scenario, they may be doing students a tremendous disservice. By far, the most common campus crime, year after year, is burglary. Almost all school or campus shooters were “insiders,” or persons who belonged on the grounds. Yet many school districts and some colleges responded to fear of intruders by investing in ID badges or other forms of identification for students and staff. This might not be a tremendously costly measure, but it also may not be useful. A more helpful response is for a school to develop an emergency management and communication plan and to host awareness events and trainings so that students and staff can identify real threats and be equipped to respond to them, if necessary. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Bedenbaugh, C. (2003). Measuring fear of crime on campus: A study of an urban university. Thesis retrieved from http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0704103 -080530/unrestricted/Bedenbaugh_thesis.pdf Cohen, S. (1973). Folk devils and moral panics. St. Albins: Paladin. Cosgrove-Mather, B. (2004, July 29). Report: Teens fear school violence. Retrieved April 29, 2010, from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/29/ national/main632972.shtml Fox, J., & Savage, J. (2009). Mass murder goes to college: An examination of changes on college campuses after Virginia Tech. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 1465–1485. Hemphill, B., & LaBanc, B. (2010). Enough is enough: A student affairs perspective and response to a campus shooting. New York: Stylus. Killingbeck, D. (2001). The role of television news in the construction of school violence as a “moral panic.” Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 8(3). Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol8is3/killingbeck.html Lindle, J. (2008, January). School safety: Real or imagined fear? Educational Policy, 22(1), 28–44. Paludi, M. (2008). Understanding and preventing campus violence. Westport, CT: Praeger. Young, J. (1971). The drugtakers: The social meaning of drug use. London: McGibben and Kee.

177

178

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) The Bureau of Investigation of the U.S. Department of Justice was developed in 1908. In 1935, this agency became the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Apart from undertaking intelligence operations, the FBI investigates different kinds of federal crime. Given that campuses have become the scenes of brutal killings, assaults, and violence in recent years, as part of its mandate the FBI is taking this problem very seriously and joining in investigations of criminal cases affecting schools. The FBI, through its different agencies, is analyzing the problem as well as suggesting methods to prevent unbridled school crimes. The spate of killings and escalating violence in places of learning has put the investigating agency on alert. As early as 1953, the FBI had become involved in investigating campus crimes. In that year, FBI agents successfully solved the case of the Greenlease kidnapping, in which a six-year-old student at the French Institute of Notre Dame De Sion in Kansas City, Missouri, was kidnapped and murdered. The culprits were caught soon afterward and executed for the crime.

FBI special agent Michael Tabman briefs Minneapolis media about the investigation into the Red Lake High School shooting as attorney Tom Heffelfinger listens on April 18, 2005. (AP/Wide World Photos)

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

More than 45 years later, after the Columbine High School massacre in Littleton, Colorado, on April 20, 1999, the Investigative and Prosecutive Graphic Unit of the FBI took a leading role in documenting the crime. By using hightech methods, investigators were able to reconstruct the sequence of events and movements of particular persons during the incident. The FBI’s data were a great help in the investigation, as the agency is equipped to do things that local police cannot. The FBI also conducted an in-depth study of school shootings after the tragedy at Columbine. It pointed to factors such as troubled relationships, frustration, selfish behavior, a sense of alienation, violent video games, easy access to weapons, and a sense of revenge as some of the primary reasons for the perceived escalation of school violence. In June 1999, the FBI held a special conference where a threat assessment perspective was emphasized rather than profiling of the potential school shooter. The FBI was involved with the Red Lake shooting spree in March 2005, as it occurred on an Indian reservation. In this case, a 17-year-old student indiscriminately fired shots in his school, resulting in the deaths of 14 students and a teacher. In the last several years, the FBI has published special reports and held conferences aimed at enabling all sorts of educational institutions to tackle violence on their campuses more effectively. In the wake of Virginia Tech massacre of April 16, 2007, the FBI again began an in-depth study, this time focusing on the unique issues faced by college campuses. The FBI cannot completely eliminate school violence, but the agency has taken specific steps to counteract the horrendous social evil associated with these crimes. With 56 field offices dotted around the United States, the FBI is endeavoring to tackle the problem on a wide scale. Patit Paban Mishra Further Reading Balcavage, D., & Schlesinger, A. ( Eds.). (2000). Federal Bureau of Investigation. New York: Chelsea House. Benedek, E. P., & Cornell, D. G. (Eds.). (1989). Juvenile homicide. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. FBI cases. (n.d.). Retrieved March 2, 2009, from http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/org/ cases99.htm FBI history: Famous cases. (n.d.). Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://www .fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/greenlease/greenleasenew.htm Finley, L. (2007). Encyclopedia of juvenile violence. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Jeffreys-Jones, R. (2007). The FBI: A history. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. O’Toole, M. (1999). The school shooter: A threat assessment perspective. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from www.fbi.gov/publications/school/school2.pdf

179

180

Fiction and School Crime and Violence

Reebel, P. (Ed.). (2002). Federal Bureau of Investigation: Current issues and background. New York: Nova Science Publishers. U.S. Department of Justice. (2007). Crime in schools and colleges. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from www.fbi.gov/ucr/schoolviolence/2007/schoolviolence .pdf

Fiction and School Crime and Violence Since the 19th century, writers have set large numbers of their stories in schools; these works are meant mainly for a school-age audience, although some are intended for older readers. The traditional form featured an account of bullying, where the bullied student, usually a boy, eventually triumphs. Charles Dickens’s Nicholas Nickleby (1838–1839), for example, recounts boys being bullied in the fictional school Dotheboys Hall run by the vicious Wackford Squeers. Bullying—

Nicholas astonished Mr. Squeers and family in Charles Dickens’ book Nicholas Nickleby. (Dickens, Charles. Nicholas Nickleby, 1839)

Fiction and School Crime and Violence

this time by older fellow students—is also the central theme of Richard Hughes’ famous book Tom Brown’s Schooldays (1857). Set at Rugby School in England, which Hughes attended from 1834 until 1842, the book became so popular that it has been in print ever since its original publication. A sequel, Tom Brown at Oxford (1861), was also successful, and a series of “Flashman” books by George MacDonald Fraser were based on the later life of the leading bully in the story, Harry Flashman, and his cowardly actions around the British Empire. Since Tom Brown’s Schooldays, many books have used schools as their primary setting, with a number of them centering on the themes of bullying, theft, and murder. Incidents of bullying, especially in boys’ boarding schools, pervade many novels that focus on school days, just as they often do in autobiographies. Some of the most well-known accounts are by Roald Dahl in both his autobiographical Boy (1984) and his short story “Galloping Foxley” (1960). Other books such as Rudyard Kipling’s Stalky & Co (1899) and Nicholas Drayson’s Confessing a Murder (2003), about a student at school with Charles Darwin, include in-school bullying scenes and then follow the victimized student into later life. The violence in many of these fictional boarding schools, however, is nowhere near the treatment meted out to inmates in juvenile detention centers and youth custody centers. The latter literature includes such works as Steven Slater’s Approved School Boy (1967) set in Dorset, England, and Lorenzo Carcaterra’s Sleepers (1995), set in New York State; both of these books are partially autobiographical in nature. Damon Galgut’s A Sinless Season (1982), set in South Africa, covers bullying by other inmates and staff in detail. William Golding’s Lord of the Flies (1954) goes even further in describing the lives of boys stranded on an island with no adults. The proliferation of books for school-age children has led to many books that focus on children solving crimes in school settings. Terence Rattigan’s play The Winslow Boy (1961), which is often performed in schools, focuses on the Archer-Shee case that rocked British politics in 1908–1911, in which a father sought to clear the name of his son who was expelled for theft. Other popular children’s stories involving crimes include Anthony Buckeridge’s Rex Milligan’s Busy Term (1953), in which a boy from a London grammar school uses information from his history teacher to prevent a greedy developer from illegally taking over the school. Stories set in boarding schools offer an easier environment for writers, as they typically include a limited number of characters and suspects. One example of this genre is Buckeridge’s Jennings Follows a Clue (1951), which is set in an English preparatory school. Richmal Crompton’s character “William,” is regularly involved in trying to solve mysteries and crimes, with some 40 books devoted to his career. Erich Ka¨stner’s Emil and the Detectives (1929), set in Berlin in the 1920s, describes a boy tracking down the pickpocket who stole some money from him (and who turns out to be a wanted bank robber). Paul Berna’s Le Cheval sans teˆte

181

182

Fiction and School Crime and Violence

(1955; published in English as A Hundred Million Francs in 1957) involves a group of schoolchildren in Paris becoming involved in the hunt for a major bank robber. Maurice G. Woodward’s The Mystery of Lodge School (1987) has as its setting a remote British boarding school where a mysterious series of events follow the arrival of a new German master. Murders also occur on a regular basis in Hogwarts, the school attended by J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter. Mention should also be made of Charlie Higson’s SilverFin (2005) and subsequent books about the young James Bond at Britain’s Eton College. In addition, child spies dealing with murders and other cases appear in the Alex Rider stories of Anthony Horowitz, starting with Stormbreaker (2000), and in the Alpha Force series by Chris Ryan. A number of historical crime novels have centered on events in schools or around schoolchildren. Caroline Lawrence’s “Bread and Circuses,” a short story set in Rome during the reign of the Emperor Titus, has school children deciding to solve the mystery surrounding bread stolen from a baker. In The Owls of Gloucester (2000), the 10th in the Domesday Book series by Edward Marston (pseudonym for Keith Miles), set in about 1085, two boys serving as novice monks at Gloucester Cathedral uncover the body of a monk who was one of their teachers. Cynthia Harnett’s The Load of Unicorn (1959) focuses on the life of a boy at St. Paul’s Cathedral School, London, in the early 1480s, and features scriveners trying to keep paper from William Caxton to prevent him from printing books that would cause them to lose business. Michael Clynes (pseudonym for Paul Doherty), in his Sir Roger Shallot murder/mystery journals set during the reign of Henry VIII, features Benjamin Daunbey, the nephew of Cardinal Wolsey, as a schoolmaster. In all of these works, however, the central issue in the story is historical, not the school. Ashley Gardner sets his The Sudbury School Murders (2005) in Regency England, with the importance of the honor of the school being an initial theme until it is overwhelmed by money-making schemes devised by a wealthy student. Set n Australia, Jackie French’s Tom Appleby: Convict Boy (2004) covers the life of a fictional child convict in Australia in the 1790s, and Gary Disher’s Moondyne Kate (2001) has a schoolboy involved with bushrangers in mid-19thcentury Australia. There are also some crime stories whereby schoolteachers become involved in crime. Ernest Raymond’s We, the Accused (1935), made into a film in 1980, is about a teacher who tries to shorten the life of his ill wife and finds himself trying to escape from the police. The vulnerability of schoolchildren to being kidnapped also features in many stories, such as Frank Richards’s Lord Billy Bunter (1956); Jerrard Tickell’s Whither do You Wander (1959); and Arden Winch’s Blood Money (1981), which was turned into a television series by the British Broadcasting Corporation. The

Fiction and School Crime and Violence

crime writer Ellis Peters (pseudonym for Edith Pargeter) wrote City of Gold and Sorrows (1973), which involves the disappearance (and murder) of an inquisitive teenage boy on a school history excursion to the site of a Roman villa. Kingsley Amis’s The Riverside Villas Murder (1973) has a London schoolboy inadvertently solving the mystery over a murder of a local man. Another genre consists of murder stories written for adults but focusing on schools. R. C. Woodthorpe’s The Public School Murder (1932) covers the murder of an English public school headmaster; James Hilton’s Murder at School: A Detective Fantasia (1935) has two brothers attending the same school and having separate accidental deaths; and the mystery in Josephine Bell’s Death at HalfTerm (1939) surrounds a murder in an English preparatory school during a performance of Twelfth Night. Edmund Crispin’s Love Lies Bleeding (1948) is set in a public school near Stratford-upon-Avon and describes the murders of two schoolmasters as an unknown person seeks to get his hands on the manuscript of a longlost Shakespearean play. Evidence quickly points to a member of the school staff, and the crime is solved by an Oxford University professor at the school for speech day, who aids (and then takes over from) the police investigation. Key elements of this novel include the “regular” habits of several schoolmasters and the length of time taken to write school reports. The great British writer of spy fiction, John Le Carre´ (pseudonym for David Cornwell), in Murder of Quality (1962) also sets a murder in a school context, but this time highlights a student who may, or may not, have cheated in an examination. The spy George Smiley is involved in solving the mystery. Michael Gilbert’s The Night of the Twelfth (1976) focuses on a teacher and the disappearance of children near a school, and Robert Barnard’s School for Murder (1983) places a murder in a British preparatory school. Howard Shaw’s Pageant of Death (2000) has a murder carried out during the performance of a school’s 500th-anniversary pageant. The intrusion of war into school life leads to new criminal offenses that affect civilians. In R. F. Delderfield’s To Serve Them All My Days (1972), a student who refuses conscription and becomes a conscientious objector appears in the story, albeit briefly. Ian Serraillier’s The Silver Sword (1956) follows the life of a boy in German-occupied Warsaw, and Danish writer Anne Holm’s David (1963, published in English as I Am David in 1965) covers the experiences of a Jewish boy in Nazi Europe. A number of well-known films have also addressed war’s effects on schools and the lives of children, with the committing of war crimes as a backdrop. The French film Fiesta (1995) explores the life of a Spanish schoolboy leaving school for the Spanish Civil War, and Au revoir les enfants (1987) deals with the hiding of a Jewish boy in a Carmelite boarding school during the German occupation of France. Bryce Courtney’s The Power of One (1989), set in South Africa during the 1940s, focuses on the introduction of apartheid, and Robin Brown’s When

183

184

Flores, Robert

the Wood Became the Trees (1965) relates the growing up of a white schoolboy during a state of emergency and killings in Rhodesia. Series of revenge killings are rarely a theme in popular fiction, although Agatha Christie does cover this possibility in Nemesis (1976), when a former headmistress takes a coach tour with the friends of a former female student with whom a wrongly convicted young man had fallen in love many years earlier. Gavin Newman (pseudonym for Guy N. Smith), in The Hangman (1994), has an evil young man seeking revenge on all who wronged him, including his former headmaster who had punished him too many times. The range and variety of these stories illustrate how the nature of crime and the clear interest in crime writing have led to many books set around schools, teachers, and students. As a genre, it has attracted many well-known writers, most of whom are famous for other books, as well as a number of schoolteachers and former schoolteachers such as Buckeridge, Doherty, and Woodward. Justin Corfield Further Reading Fitzpatrick, R. (1990). Bullies, beaks and flannelled fools: An annotated bibliography of boys’ school fiction 1742–1990. London: privately published. Gathorne-Hardy, J. (1977). The old school tie: The phenomenon of the English public school. New York: Viking Press.

Flores, Robert At approximately 8:30 A.M. on October 28, 2002, Robert Stewart Flores, Jr., entered the College of Nursing at the University of Arizona armed with a Norinco .45-caliber semi-automatic pistol, a Glock .40-caliber semi-automatic pistol, a Smith and Wesson .357-caliber revolver, a Colt .357 semi-automatic revolver, a Czech 9-mm semi-automatic pistol, and approximately 250 rounds of ammunition. Flores then shot to death three nursing professors before taking his own life. Flores had a valid “concealed carry” permit. The requirements for obtaining such a permit in Arizona included the successful completion of a 16-hour safety training course and a successful background check conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Flores was born in 1961 in Los Angeles, California. He had two older sisters and a younger brother. His parents were divorced, and Flores labeled them as “marginal at best.” Flores described his father as distant and lacking in any parenting skills, and his mother as an enabler who lacked self-confidence. Flores enlisted in the Army at age 19 and did a tour in the Gulf War. He separated from the service in 1992. At the time of the shootings, Flores was divorced and had two children ages 15 and 10.

Flores, Robert

Flores attended nursing school in San Angelo, Texas. He graduated with a degree in practical nursing and worked as a licensed practical nurse (LPN). Eventually, he enrolled in the College of Nursing at the University of Arizona. Flores indicated that he believed his relationship with the College of Nursing faculty was contentious from the very beginning. He felt slighted when the College of Nursing would not give him transfer credit for nursing classes he had completed in his practical nursing program. Flores also suggested that the faculty viewed registered nurses who held associate degrees as not being “professional” and that they viewed LPNs as not being “real nurses.” Flores had several confrontations with faculty during his two years at the University of Arizona. He was given a written reprimand by a clinical supervisor for improperly administering medications without direct supervision. In addition, he was given written reprimands for several minor rules violations during his clinical rotation. Flores viewed these confrontations as the reason he failed some classes and the reason he a failed clinical rotation. The descriptions of Flores’s relationships with fellow students and coworkers differ. Faculty members, including the victims, expressed concern with his potential to act out. Flores was described by students as being aggressive, mean, and having anger issues. In contrast, coworkers at the Veterans Administration hospital where Flores worked as an LPN described him as being very nice, intelligent, and soft spoken. At 8:37 A.M. on the morning of Flores’s attack, the first 911 call was received. Officers from the University of Arizona Police Department (UAPD) responded. At 8:40 A.M., 10 officers from the Tucson Police Department (TPD) also responded. Officers for the UAPD and the TPD were over-represented on the campus at the time of this shooting because both departments had responded to an unrelated student disturbance at the McHale Center ticket office. Officers from both departments had been trained in this type of emergency deployment, but officers had not been cross-trained. While officers were deploying, hundreds of students, faculty, and staff were exiting the building where Flores was shooting. Officers had to scan the crowd for a suspect as they entered the building and progressed to the fourth floor, where the initial shootings were reported to have occurred. At 8:43 A.M., the police chiefs from both UAPD and TPD responded and set up a command center. Thirty-three additional TPD officers reported to the scene as well. Officers conducted a building search. At 8:52 A.M., two victims and the suspect were located in a classroom on the fourth floor. At 10:23 A.M., the third victim was located in her office on the second floor. Flores had sent a “communication from the dead” to the Arizona Star prior to the events of October 28, 2002. This document explained the events in his life that precipitated the shootings. In his missive, Flores described himself as depressed. He indicated that he was falling behind in his bills, his child support, and his student loan

185

186

Free Speech

responsibilities, and he was failing in his studies. Flores blamed the failures in his recent adult life on the faculty and staff of the College of Nursing at the University of Arizona. He summarized the events of October 28 as a “reckoning”—a settling of accounts. Dennis Bulen Further Reading Buchik, N. (2002, October 30). 2 slain profs feared Flores. Arizona Daily Wildcat Online. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://www.wc.arizona.edu/ papers/96/47/01_1.html Flores, R. S. (2002, October 30). Communication from the dead. Arizona Daily Wildcat Online. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://www.wc.arizona .edu/papers/96/47/01_1.html Zdziarski, E., Zdziarski, E. II, Dunke, N., & Rollo, M. (2007). Campus crisis management: A comprehensive guide to planning, prevention, response, and recovery. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.

Free Speech How much and which types of free speech and expression rights students in public schools and colleges have has been an issue of much contention, both publicly and in the courts. Generally, parents and administrators are cautious about allowing students to have the same free speech and expression rights as adults, suggesting that full freedom would lead to chaos and a hazardous educational climate. Civil liberties advocates, however, assert that students are citizens of the United States and, therefore, are deserving—with few limitations—of the same basic rights as adult citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court heard the first school free speech case during the Vietnam War era. In 1969, the Court set a precedent with its ruling in the case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In this case, John Tinker (age 15), MaryBeth Tinker (age 13), and Christopher Eckhardt (age 16) wore black armbands to school as a means of protesting U.S. involvement in the war. Their action was in violation of a recently adopted school district policy prohibiting armbands. The students were sent home from school. Their families then filed suit, alleging the district’s policy infringed on the students’ free speech rights. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students, and issued the now famous line that students and teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to free expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Justice Abe Fortas expressed concern that schools were becoming too totalitarian. Many school officials were upset with this decision, which they saw as inviting problems and perhaps even violence.

Free Speech

The Supreme Court heard another important free speech case in 1986. In this case, Matthew Fraser gave a speech at an official school assembly nominating his friend for high school student council. The speech was full of sexually provocative double entendres, in which Fraser compared his friend to a penis. Approximately 600 students, some as young as age 14, attended the assembly, and many began hooting, making gestures simulating masturbation and sexual intercourse. The following day, the principal suspended Fraser for violating the district’s rules on obscene or profane language and gestures. Fraser was given a hearing, per the Supreme Court’s decision in Goss v. Lopez, and his two-day suspension was affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school, maintaining that students can learn only in a disciplined atmosphere. Because the event in question was a school-sponsored assembly, the school was allowed to limit Fraser’s right to free speech. In this ruling, the Court drew on previous decisions [i.e., Ginsberg v. New York (1968), Board of Education v. Pico (1982)] to determine that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting students from sexually explicit, vulgar, offensive, or violent speech. In 2007, the Court heard what was called the “most significant student freespeech conflict.” Although, like Tinker, the 2007 case addressed protest speech, the protest led by Joseph Frederick was far different than that mounted by the Tinkers and Eckhardt. Frederick unleashed a 14-foot banner with the phrase “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” during an Olympic torch event in Juneau, Alaska, on January 24, 2002. According to reports, Frederick’s aim was to get under the skin of his principal, Deborah Morse, and to get on television. Frederick had an ongoing feud with Morse, who had previously called the police when he refused to move from a commons area where he was reading and who reprimanded him when he refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Morse saw the banner at the event, which was not held on school property, and confiscated it. She also suspended Frederick for 10 days. Frederick and his family filed suit, with the support of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a host of other organizations, both liberal and conservative. The school district was represented by Kenneth W. Starr, who had become famous for his investigation of former President Bill Clinton. The district maintained that Frederick’s banner encouraged marijuana use, which was obviously prohibited by school rules. Frederick maintained he was not trying to advocate drug use or even a particular message at all. Rather, he was trying to test the district’s adherence to a student’s right to free speech. The school district even admitted that Frederick’s banner created no real disturbance at the torch event. School administrators disagreed, however, that the event was school sponsored. They claimed it was school sanctioned, given that the entire student body had been released to attend and that the school’s cheerleaders and band performed at the event. The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that Frederick’s action were unprotected speech.

187

188

Free Speech

The ACLU regularly represents students involved in free speech challenges. For instance, in 2002, the group negotiated with a Massachusetts school district to end the punishment for a student who had held up a protest sign at a school talent show. It has supported students who were suspended for taking part in the Vagina Monologues play, and a student who sang a song about God at a school talent show, among other issues. At the college level, one of the most recent issues to emerge regarding free speech has been the controversy over policies intended to limit racially or sexually offensive speech. For instance, the University of Michigan developed its policy on discrimination and discriminatory harassment in 1988 after several incidents of racial harassment on campus. Someone had distributed a flyer around Ann Arbor declaring “open season” on “saucer lips, porch monkeys, and jigaboos”—racially offensive terms for African Americans. A campus radio station allowed the broadcast of a racially offensive joke, and a Ku Klux Klan uniform was displayed outside a dorm window. The University of Michigan policy prohibited behavior that “stigmatizes or victimizes an individual on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, handicap, or Vietnam-veteran status, and/or . . . that creates an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment for educational pursuits.” A graduate student challenged this policy, arguing that it limited his right to discuss controversial theories abut biological differences. The courts agreed with this student, striking down the university’s policy as overly broad. Although schools and campuses are concerned that provocative speech can incite violence, they also worry that too many limitations might prompt revolts. More likely, however, is the prospect that excessive limitations on speech will lead to apathy. Recent research has demonstrated that few students are knowledgeable about their First Amendment rights. Critics maintain that this lack of awareness arises because school districts fail to teach students about these important issues and, even more, because they do not practice them. The consequences are disastrous, say critics, because students who do not know about or think about their rights will become adults who do not question inappropriate and unconstitutional limitations on the First Amendment. Laura L. Finley Further Reading ACLU free expression. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/ expression/index.html Barnes, R. (2007, March 13). Justices to hear landmark free-speech case. Washington Post. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201699.html

Free Speech

Dautrich, K., & Yalof, D. (2008). The future of the First Amendment: The digital media, civic education, and free expression rights in America’s high schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Hudson, D. (2009, April 22). Hate speech and campus speech codes. First Amendment Center. Retrieved August 27, 2009, from http://www.firstamendment center.org/speech/pubcollege/topic.aspx?topic=campus_speech_codes McMasters, P. (2005, June 5). When school grounds become free-speech battlegrounds. First Amendment Center. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://www .firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=15390

189

This page intentionally left blank

G Gambling Young people are increasingly getting involved with gambling, especially males. Many are even developing gambling addictions. Research presented at the 106th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association showed that between 5% and 8% of American and Canadian youth had serious gambling problems, compared to 1% to 3% of adults. The same research suggested that addictions to gambling may be worse than addictions to alcohol, smoking, and drugs. Antisocial behavior and frequent use of alcohol are also associated with increased gambling activity. One of the largest studies of youth gambling, conducted by Dr. Randy Stinchfield and colleagues at the University of Minnesota, surveyed 122,700 sixth-, ninth-, and 12th-grade students in 1992 and then followed up with 75,900 of them in 1995. This study found that gambling behavior was relatively stable over the three-year period. The only change was in gamblers’ preferences, which shifted from a preference for informal games to legal games, which corresponded with the students’ increasing ages. Those who were heavier gamblers at the beginning of the study continued to be the heaviest gamblers during the follow-up period. Most of the students in the study had gambled at least once during the previous year, with rates far higher for boys (80%) than for girls (50%). Twenty percent of boys gambled weekly or more, while only 5%of girls gambled that frequently. Older students generally gambled more than younger ones. Another study of 21,297 eighth- through 12th-grade students in 79 public and private schools in Vermont found that 53% of students had gambled in the previous year. Seven percent reported problems they attributed to their gambling. Males were again more likely to gamble. A host of negative behaviors were associated with gambling, including use of alcohol and illegal drugs, smoking cigarettes, not using a seat belt, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, being threatened, being

191

192

Gambling

in a fight, carrying a weapon, and engaging in risky sexual activity. Although one of the primary motivations to gamble is the hope of winning, sometimes youth gamble for other reasons. Stinchfield and his colleagues concluded that some of the prevention efforts designed to curb adolescent drug use could also be helpful in curtailing or reducing youth gambling. The Vermont researchers suggested that medical and mental health professionals should include gambling in their assessments of youth. Many college students are also involved in gambling. A 2005 study measuring rates of gambling among college student-athletes found that 24% claimed to have never gambled, but another 15% had a gambling problem. A review of college student handbooks found that gambling was infrequently included as a topic in these documents; only 22% of the 119 college handbooks reviewed contained policies on gambling. A 2003 study of college students’ gambling found similar associations with negative behaviors as those found with adolescents. Compared with nongamblers, gamblers were more likely to binge on alcohol, use marijuana, smoke cigarettes, use illicit drugs, and engage in unprotected sex after drinking. Online gaming has exploded in recent years, likely fueled by television coverage of poker tournaments and easy access to the Internet. This form of gambling is particularly popular with college students, who often play Black Jack or Texas Hold ’Em online. A study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found a 20% increase in gambling rates from the same month a year earlier, with 57% of young men reporting that they gamble at least once per month. Experts suggest as many as half a million students could be addicted to gambling. They caution that few colleges are prepared to identify and help those students, given that many colleges see it as a harmless extracurricular activity. Historically, many athletes and coaches have gotten in trouble for gambling on games in which they are involved. How frequently this problem occurs is difficult to measure, as data often emerge only after some type of scandal. A 2003 study by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) found 63.4% of males reported some type of gambling, and that student-athletes were most frequently involved with gambling in the form of playing cards or board games for money, betting on games of personal skill, lottery tickets, slot or electronic poker machines, sports cards, football polls, or parlays. In January 1951, the New York Journal-American reported on widespread point shaving in college basketball. Point shaving occurs when a player or group of players attempt to fix a game or match so that a particular team does not cover the published point spread, which helps those who have bet on the other team. In one scandal, Junius Kellogg of Manhattan College was offered $1,000 to shave points. Kellogg told his coach, who told the university president. The police got involved, telling Kellogg to take the offer so they could arrest the perpetrator, Henry Poppe, a former standout at Manhattan. A month after the Manhattan

Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.)

College scandal, three players from the City College of New York were arrested for throwing games during the 1950–1951 season; only days later, three players from Long Island University were arrested for the same offense. Other pointfixing scandals in college basketball occurred in 1961, at Boston College in 1978–1979, and at Tulane College in 1985 with the indictment of eight players. One of the biggest football point shaving scandals involved Northwestern University in 1994. Other college gambling scandals in the 1990s involved the University of Maine, the University of Rhode Island, and Bryant College. In 1996, Boston College suspended 13 football players for gambling on college and professional sports, in violation of NCAA rules. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Christianson, E. (2004, May 12). NCAA study finds sports wagering a problem among student-athletes. National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM _GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/Media+and+Events/Press+Room/News +Release+Archive/2004/Research/NCAA+study+finds+sports+wage ring+a +problem+among+student+athletes Finley, P., Finley, L., & Fountain, J. (2008). Sports scandals. Westport, CT: Praeger. Gambling takes hold of college students. (2006, March 10). ABC News. Retrieved May 2, 2010 from http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1710705&page=1 Kerber, C. (2005). Problem and pathological gambling among college students. Annual of Clinical Psychiatry, 17(4), 243–247. Labrie, R., Shaffer, H., LaPlante, D., & Wechslet, H. (2003). Correlates of college student gambling in the United States. American College Health, 52(2), 53–62. Pathological gambling more prevalent among youths than adults, study finds. (1998, August 20). Retrieved April 29, 1010, from http://www.sciencedaily .com/releases/1998/08/980820075118.htm Proimos, J., DuRant, R., Pierce, J., & Goodman, E. (1998, August). Gambling and other risk behaviors among 8th- to 12th-grade students. Pediatrics, 102(2), 23. Shaffer, H., Donato, A., Labrie, R., Kidman, R., & LaPlante, D. (2005). The epidemiology of college alcohol and gambling policies. Harm Reduction Journal, 2(1).

Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) is a school-based program designed to prevent youth violence and delinquency—in particular, membership in gangs. Trained law enforcement officers provide instruction in public school

193

194

Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.)

classrooms. They also work with community youth organizations such as the Boys and Girls Clubs of America and the National Association of Police Athletic Leagues. Not only does this program help educate young people, but the collaborations forged in its delivery build important community relationships. Since the program it was created 1991, more than 10,000 law enforcement officers have been certified as G.R.E.A.T. instructors and more than 5 million students have graduated from G.R.E.A.T. The G.R.E.A.T. programs include a 13-session middle school curriculum, an elementary school curriculum, a summer program, and training for families. Lessons focus on providing life skills to students to help them avoid using delinquent behavior and violence to solve problems. All G.R.E.A.T. instructors are sworn law enforcement officers who receive additional training on the G.R.E.A.T. curriculum at one of four regional training centers. The G.R.E.A.T. umbrella covers a continuum of components for students and their families. Specifically, the elementary program, which consists of six 30- to 45-minute lessons, focuses on building positive bonds between students and law enforcement. Lessons cover bullying, discussing the role of offenders, victims, and bystanders; ways to communicate; strategies for cooling down when you feel angry; appreciating differences; and identification of adults who can help when needed. This elementary school program is typically implemented in the fourth or fifth grade. The middle school program is designed for sixth or seventh graders and focuses more specifically on gang prevention. Students learn facts and fiction about gangs and violence and discover what they can do to help. They also discuss verbal and nonverbal communication, empathy, resisting peer pressure, and other social skills. The G.R.E.A.T. summer program is flexible but is really intended to help reduce the boredom that leads many youth into trouble when they are out of school. Students might take field trips and participate in other outdoor activities or games in addition to receiving information about gangs, violence, and positive conflict resolution. The family program takes place in six sessions. It is designed to help parents and guardians identify warning signs of youth crime and violence and resist participation in gangs or other deviant or criminal behavior. The G.R.E.A.T. program was developed in 1991 by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Phoenix Police Department (PPD). It was originally an eight-lesson middle school curriculum, but in early 1992, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) joined the ATF and PPD to expand the program. The first G.R.E.A.T. officer training was held in 1992. By 1998, the La Crosse, Wisconsin, Police Department; the Orange County, Florida, Sheriff’s Office; the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Police Department; and the Portland, Oregon, Police Bureau were all providing assistance.

Gangs and School Crime and Violence

In 1995, a five-year longitudinal evaluation of the G.R.E.A.T. program was launched. Results showed that students who completed the training had lower levels of victimization, more negative views about gangs, and more favorable attitudes about police. Researchers also found a reduction in risk-seeking behaviors, and increased association with peers involved in prosocial activities. G.R.E.A.T. underwent an extensive program and curriculum review in 1999– 2000. The review led to the addition of lessons, from eight to 13, and included more active learning. In 2001, the new curriculum was piloted in 14 cities nationwide and implemented nationally beginning in 2003. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Esbensen, F., & Osgood, D. (1997). National evaluation of G.R.E.A.T. National Institute of Justice Research Brief. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from http://www .ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/167264.txt Gang Resistance Education and Training: http://www.great-online.org/ Default.Aspx

Gangs and School Crime and Violence In the 1970s, only 19 states in the United States reported gangs and gang violence to be issues faced by criminal justice personnel. By 1995, however, all states as well as the District of Columbia reported gangs and gang violence to be problems. Roughly 4,000 cities, towns, villages, and counties now report ongoing problems with gangs. California, Illinois, Texas, and Florida are home to the largest numbers of gangs and gang members. This essay discusses the reasons why individuals join gangs, the pervasiveness of gangs and gang violence in the community and in schools, and prevention and intervention programs aimed at curbing the number of gangs, the number of gang members, and the rate of gang-related violence. Before moving forward, it is important to establish a definition of a gang. Different jurisdictions have different definitions for gangs, and historically researchers have had trouble defining gangs due to the differences in the types of gangs and their activities. Additionally, every jurisdiction’s gang problem is unique from the rest. Such a lack of consensus means that law enforcement agencies, as well as criminologists and sociologists, must select their own criteria for defining a gang. Although the definition of a gang may vary depending on the particular jurisdiction or law agency, the following criteria are generally used to define a gang: (1) the group has a formal organizational structure, (2) the group has a leader as well as a hierarchy, (3) the group is identified with a specific territory, (4) the group’s

195

196

Gangs and School Crime and Violence

members have consistent interaction, and (5) the members participate in deviant and criminal offenses. This essay uses the definition of a gang or a youth gang, as defined by the National Youth Gang Center, is “a group of youth or young adults in your jurisdiction that you or other responsible persons in your agency or community are willing to identify as a gang.” Motorcycle gangs, hate groups, prison gangs, and gangs consisting solely of adults are excluded from this definition. Young people join gangs for a variety of reasons: to find a sense of belonging, security, respect, entertainment, peer influence, status, acceptance, and monetary success. Although gangs date back hundreds of years, in the 1960s heightened concern in reference to violent crime in the United States began to come to the surface. In the 1970s, although not yet causing much alarm, gang violence and membership continued to rise. By the 1980s, more police officials, criminologists, and politicians began to focus on the illegal activities of gangs. In the 1990s, gang violence peaked and reached alarming levels. During this decade, gang activity was viewed as widespread, threatening, and on the rise. It was in this environment that gang officers were assigned and gang units were born. Moreover, research into gangs began, gang programs were created and implemented, and the U.S. Department of Justice created the National Youth Gang Center. According to data gathered by a law enforcement survey, in 1991 there were roughly 4,881 gangs in the United States with an estimated 249,324 members. In 1994, more than 90% of the nation’s largest cities reported youth gang problems, an increase of 40% since 1983. In 1999, 66% of large cities, 47% of suburban counties, and 27% of small cities reported active youth gangs. According to the Violence Prevention Institute, 100% of cities with a population of 250,000 or more reported gang activity in 2001. That same year, 85% of cities with a population between 100,000 and 229,440 reported gang activity. Moreover, 65% of cities with a population between 50,000 and 99,999 reported gang activity, 44% of cities with populations of 25,000 to 49,999 reported such activity, and 20% of cities with populations of 2,500 to 24,995 reported gang activity in 2001. In addition, 35% of suburban cities and 11% of rural cities reported gang activity in 2001. Also noteworthy is the fact that 56% of cities with populations larger than 100,000 reported either an increase or no change regarding numbers of gang members in 2001. A year later, in 2002, the Youth Gang Survey estimated that there were 732,000 gang members in the United States, a 5% increase over the number tallied in the previous year. The mid-1990s until the early 2000s saw a slight decline in gang violence. In 2007, however, one-third of jurisdictions—the highest proportion since the 1990s— experienced gang problems. Within the areas surveyed, 86% of law enforcement agencies in larger cities, 50% of agencies in suburban counties, 35% of agencies in small cities, and 15% of agencies in rural counties reported gang problems.

Gangs and School Crime and Violence

Overall, roughly 3,550 jurisdictions served by city and county law enforcement agencies experienced gang problems in 2007. In that same year, there were a total of 788,000 gang members and 27,000 gangs in the United States. These statistics convey the sense that gang violence is a serious issue in communities throughout the United States. Research suggests that teens and young adults who belong to a gang are far more likely to commit violent or serious offenses. For example, a survey in Denver concluded that while only 14% of teens were active gang members, that small percentage was responsible for committing 89% of the violent crimes in the city. Across the United States, crime trends indicate that the number of violent acts committed by youth gang members is increasing. The explanation for this rise of violence by youth gang members is simple: guns. Beginning in the 20th century, rather than using a knife or fists as weapons, gang members began to use revolvers, semi-automatic weapons, and other powerful guns to commit violent acts. With the larger number of gangs, more fearless members, and ever deadlier weapons, gang violence began to soar, particularly in the 1990s. For example, in 1994, Chicago and Los Angeles alone accounted for more than 1,000 gang homicides. While gang homicides decreased in the vast majority of large cities between 1995 and 2000, homicides considered to be gang related increased by 50% between 1999 and 2002. A 1998 study comparing gang and non-gang criminal behavior produced the following findings: • 30.4% of gang members and 14.3% of non-gang members shoplifted • 44% of gang members and 4.1% of non-gang members committed auto theft • 51.1% of gang members and 14.3% of non-gang members committed other forms of theft • 72.3% of gang members and 16.3% of non-gang members assaulted rivals • 29.8% of gang members and 10.2% of non-gang members bribed police officials • 40.4% of gang members and 2% of non-gang members committed drive-by shootings • 15.2% of gang members and 0% of non-gang members in this sample carried out a homicide According to the Violence Prevention Institute, 69% of cities with populations larger than 100,000 reported gang-related homicides in 2001. In that same year, 59% of all homicides in Los Angeles and 53% of homicides in Chicago were gang related. In Los Angeles and Chicago combined, there were a total of 698 gangrelated homicides. In comparison, in 130 other cities with populations greater than

197

198

Gangs and School Crime and Violence

100,000 that were experiencing gang problems, there were a total of 637 such homicides. In August 2005, there were 160 reported gang-related robberies and 59 attempted gang-related homicides in Los Angeles alone. Research indicates that in 2007, one in five of the largest cities reported an increase in gang homicides and about two in five reported an increase in other violent offenses by gang members. In addition to being connected to violent crimes in the community, youth gang activity is correlated with serious crime problems in elementary, middle, and high schools in the United States. In schools attended by gang members, students have roughly double the likelihood of violent victimization of students in non-gangpopulated schools. According to the Youth Gang Survey, among the respondents reporting gang activity in 2000, 95% identified activity within one or more high schools in their jurisdictions. Furthermore, a startling 91% reported gang activity within one or more middle schools in their jurisdictions. Moreover, According to an NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey) sample of 10,000 students ages 12 to19, 26% of 12-year-olds, 34% of 13-year-olds, and 41% of 14- to19-yearolds reported gang presence in or around their school. In a different study, 45% of a student sample reported being threatened or shot at on the way to or from school. In the School Crime Supplement to the NCVS, one-third of youths surveyed reported a gang presence in their schools in 2005. The majority of these gangs seen in schools are involved in one or more of the following types of criminal offenses: selling drugs, carrying guns, and violence. Additionally, compared with previous years, higher percentages of students reported knowing a student who brought a gun to school when gangs were present at school (25%) than when gangs were not present (8%). In another sample of 1,279 schools in the United States in 2001, 7.6% of male secondary students and 3.8% of female secondary students reported belonging to a gang in the previous 12 months. Approximately 28% of gang-involved boys reported being threatened with a gun or knife that school year. Additionally, 5% of boys who were not affiliated with a gang reported being threatened with a weapon. For girls, those numbers were 18% and 2%, respectively. Researchers have found that 40.4% of gang members, compared to 10.2% of non-gang members, bring a gun to school; 19.1% of gang members, compared to 8.2% of non-gang members, sell drugs in school. In addition, the National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center reports substantial drug availability when gangs are present in schools. Rebecca Ajo Further Reading Curry, D., & Decker, H. (2003). Confronting gangs: Crime and community. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Gender and School Crime and Violence, College

Dudley, W., & Gerdes, L. (eds.) (2005). Gangs: Opposing viewpoints. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press. Klein, M. (2006). Street gang patterns and policies. New York: Oxford. Klein, M., Maxson, C., & Miller, J. (2001). The modern gang reader, 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury. National Gang Center: http://www.iir.com/NYGC/ Shelden, R., Tracy, S., & Brown, W. (2004). Youth gangs in American society, 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Worth, R. (2002). Gangs and crime. Philadelphia, PA: Chelsea House. Youth gangs and violence. (2008, January 4). National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center. Retrieved May 5, 2010, from http://www.safeyouth.org/ scripts/faq/youthgang.asp

Gender and School Crime and Violence, College Campus crime in general, and gender-based violence in particular, attracted considerable attention during the 1990s. This attention has continued into the 21st century. One of the highest-profile crimes involved the on-campus rape and murder of Jeanne Clery, a 19-year-old freshman who was killed in her dormitory at Lehigh University in 1986. Following Clery’s murder, public persistence along with leadership by the Clery family demanded action on a national level. The federal response included several laws initially formulated in 1990 as the Student Right-to-Know Campus Security Act. The 1990 act was amended first in 1992 and again in 1998, and was renamed the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act. Subsequent amendments in 2000 and 2008 added provisions for registered sex offender notification and campus emergency response. Moreover, in 1999, the Department of Justice awarded $8.1 million to 21 campuses to combat sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking. Colleges and universities are supposed to be safe places for personal and social growth and maturation, but violence on college campuses is commonplace. Sexual assault is a crime primarily against women and youth, and its occurrence on college campuses is not declining; crimes such as rape, assault, sexual harassment, stalking, and even murder are prevalent at such sites. Like domestic violence, gender violence that occurs on college campuses is largely hidden and often overlooked; thus these crimes are allowed to occur in secrecy and go under-reported, under-prosecuted, and under-punished. According to the National Crime Survey, prior to 1987 sexually violent crimes, such as sexual assault, were infrequent and the rarest of violent offenses. Several studies have since identified the prevalence of gender crimes on college campuses—for

199

200

Gender and School Crime and Violence, College

example, the Department of Justice estimated that a woman has between one in four and one in five chance of being raped during her college years. The U.S. House of Representatives survey from 1987 discovered that 38% of college women had either been raped or were victims of felony sexual assaults. Ten years later, the National Sexual Victimization of College Women Survey (published in 2000) involving 4,446 women attending twoor four-year colleges reported victimization rates of 35.3 per 1,000 among college women in 1996–1997; of these assaults, 12.8% were completed rapes, 35% were attempted rapes, and 22.9% were threatened date rapes. Thus a college with 10,000 female students could expect to see more than 350 rapes per academic year—a finding with serious policy implications for college A female college student demonstrates the use of administrators. a campus emergency call box. In an attempt to Although much national attention decrease the likelihood of a violent attack, various has focused on the use of drugs to security measures are in place on college facilitate a rape, alcohol continues to campuses nationwide. (iStockPhoto) play a crucial role in many college crimes. Several studies have linked excessive alcohol consumption with sexual assault: Fisher et al. (2000) discovered that from half to three-fourths of sexual assaults on college campuses involved alcohol consumption by the victim, the perpetrator, or both. Abbey et al. (1996) reported that more than half of 1,600 women had experienced some form of sexual assault; of these assaults, 95% involved alcohol consumption by the man, the woman, or both. Koss and Dinero (1989) and Miller and Marshall (1987) noted similar findings in both of their studies. Miller and Marshall found that 60% of women who engaged in sexual intercourse had been using alcohol or other drugs, while Koss and Dinero listed alcohol use as one of four primary predictors associated with college women’s chances of being raped. In interviews conducted by Kanin (1985), more than half of college date rapists felt their status would have been enhanced if they forced sex on the woman they drank with, while threefourths reported getting a date high to have sex with her. Mailman, Riggs, and

Gender and School Crime and Violence, College

Turco’s 1990 survey of campus males and females about unwanted sexual experiences revealed that 3.2% of females were victims of unwanted attempted intercourse, and 11.5% experienced unwanted completed intercourse during their college years; for both men and women who reported attempted unwanted sexual experiences, more than half admitted alcohol was a factor. Furthermore, alcohol use was cited by the perpetrators in 55% of the sexual assault incidents and by women in 39% of unwanted sexual encounters. Moreover, 60% of college women who acquired sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS, had been drinking at the time of their infection. Other empirical studies suggest a strong association between alcohol consumption and sexual aggression on campus. A 1987 study of 635 college men and women that explored sexual aggression in dating discovered that 77.6% of women experienced sexual aggression and 14% unwanted intercourse; in comparison, 57.3% of men reported involvement in sexual aggression, and 7.1% reported unwanted sexual intercourse. Muehlenhard and Linton’s 1987 study reported similar findings, including heavy alcohol use as a major factor for both sexual aggression and rape. In this research, among men who acknowledged committing sexual assaults on dates, 55% reported being intoxicated at the time while 29% were mildly high. Dating violence is comprised of controlling, abusive, and aggressive behavior, and can include verbal, emotionel, physical, or sexual abuse, or a combination of these forms. According to Schwartz et al. (2006), dating violence is a major problem on college campuses that requires preventive interventions. Research studies have continued linked dating with gender violence: Edward H. Thompson found one in three college students has experienced or been an initiator of violence in a dating relationship in his 1991 research; Kerry E. Hannan and Barry Burkhart reported in 1993 that 25% of college men surveyed admitted to slapping, pushing, or restraining a female partner; the National Center for Victims of Crime revealed in 2006 that 32% of college students reported dating violence by a previous partner and 21% by a current partner; and Schwartz et al. discovered in 2006 that more than one-fifth of the undergraduate dating population was physically abused by their dating partners. Koss’s 1985 survey about date rape at 32 colleges discovered that most of the rapes occurred on campus, and 84% of women knew their assailants before the attack. However, only 27% of victims knew that their sexual assault fell within the legal definition of rape; 16% thought what happened to them was a crime; 11% did not think a crime was committed; and a disturbing 46% believed they were victims of serious miscommunication. Additionally, one in 12 men admitted committing acts that met the legal definition of rape or attempted rape. Sexual violence has a serious negative impact on the academic performance of the collegiate victim. For example, when sexual crimes occur, victims may drop out of school or at least stop attending for an extended period of time. In a study

201

202

Gender and School Crime and Violence, College

by Frintner and Rubinson in 1993, 37.1% of the women who experienced sexual assault reported a decrease in grade-point average after the incident. Ten other women reduced their course load, while three others suspended their studies. According to the American College Health Association, stalking is also a concern within college communities. Stalking is the willful, repeated, and malicious following, harassing, or threatening of another person. Elizabeth Musatine and Richard Tewsbury’s 1999 study of women attending nine institutions of higher education reported that 10% of female students said they had been stalked in the previous six months. According to Fisher et al. (2000), the most common forms of stalking behaviors reported by victims were being telephoned (77.7 %), the offender waiting outside or inside (47.9%), being watched from afar (44 %), being followed (42 %), being sent letters (30.7 %), and being emailed (24.7 %). Almost two-thirds of the sample admitted being stalked at least two to six times per week, while 13.1% reported having been stalked since the school year began. Victims also stated that the stalker either threatened or attempted to harm them in 15.3% of the incidents; in 10.3% of the incidents, the stalker forced or attempted sexual contact. The researchers noted that many women do not characterize their victimizations as a crime for several reasons: they are embarrassed; they do not understand the legal definition of rape; they are unwilling to accuse someone they know of being a rapist; or they blame themselves. Furthermore, many college administrators simply ignore the relatively high prevalence of stalking on their campuses. Women have experienced violence throughout the history of higher education, but the murder of Annie Le in September 2009 at Yale University served as a recent reminder of how violent some institutions of higher education have become. Several other women have been murdered on campuses nationwide in the last few years as well: Katherine Rosen was stabbed to death at the University of California in Los Angeles (2009); a female student was killed at Northern Illinois University (2008); a 22-year-old female was murdered at Eastern Michigan University (December 2006); a second-year female student at the University of California at Berkeley was raped and murdered (2004); Susannah Chase was beaten and left to die in December 1997 at the University of Colorado in Boulder—and the list goes on. While gender-based violence is endemic on college campuses, college administrators typically do not respond to sexual crimes, thus distorting crime statistics. These startling statistics of gender violence on campuses should serve as a wakeup call for higher education administrators. The unremitting prevalence of sexual assault against college women indicates a need for careful reflection by institutions of higher education regarding their policies related to deterrence of sexual violence on campus. Recognizing that a problem exists is the first step toward solving gender violence in higher education institutions. Examining institutional policies that are designed to protect college students from crimes may then lead

Gender and School Crime and Violence, High School

to improved effectiveness in combating campus violence. Additionally, campus policies against sexual assault must be enforced and reflect a zero-tolerance response toward sexual assault against women. Moreover, campus-wide efforts to fight violence should target the entire academic community. It is important that women on campus become aware of violent crimes, take precautionary measures to prevent assaults, learn how to characterize their victimizations by understanding the legal definitions of sexual crimes, and learn the procedures to follow in such cases. Finally, efforts must be directed toward making sure that the response to, and prevention of, sexual assault is victim-centered. Njoki-Wa-Kinyatti Further Reading Abbey, A., Ross, L., Ross, D., & McAuslan, P. (1996). Alcohol and dating risk factors for sexual assault among women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 147–169. Fisher, B., Cullen, F., & Turner, M. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women. National Criminal Justice Resource Center. Retrieved January 21, 2010, from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf Koss, M., & Dinero, T. (1989). Discriminant of risk factors for sexual victimization among a national sample of college women. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 57(2), 242–250. Koss, M., Gidycz C., & Wisnicwski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Counseling Clinical Psychology, 55, 162–170. Muehlenhard, C., & Linton, M. (1987). Date rape and sexual aggression in dating situations: Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 186–196. Pezza, P., & Bellotti, A. (1995). The nature of the problem and its frequency. Educational Psychology Review, 7(1), 93–102. Schwartz, J., Griffin, L., Russell, M., & Frontaura-Du, S. (2006, Spring). Prevention of dating violence on college campuses: An innovative program. Journal of College Counseling, 9(1), 90–96.

Gender and School Crime and Violence, High School The issue of crime and violence in high schools cannot be fully appreciated apart from gender considerations. Gender is a significant factor in power constructs, especially among young people. Behavior among students both reflects the gender relations of adults in the current generation and shapes the gender relations of the

203

204

Gender and School Crime and Violence, High School

next generation of adults. Furthermore, school crime and violence has special relevance to girls in many regions of the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported in 2001, “For many young women, the most common place where sexual coercion and harassment are experienced is in school.” This article explores the impacts of gender-based violence in schools and efforts to combat this violence in schools both in the United States and abroad. “Gender” refers not to biologically determined sexuality but rather to socially constructed notions about what it means to be male or female. The United Nations (UN) has defined violence against women as any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual, or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion, or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life. While women are by no means the only victims of gender-based violence in schools, they are the primary victims, especially in schools outside the United States. Primarily female victimization is considered here. The alternative to gender-based violence in schools would be “gender safety,” a term that refers to freedom from fear of gender-based violence physically, sexually, or socially throughout school premises, as well as equal opportunities for males and females to learn and acquire skills both in the classroom and in extracurricular activities. Gender-based violence, as with any form of violence, stems from power conflicts. In American society, the notion that women should be quiet, passive, nurturing, and sexually naive is still very prevalent. Conversely, men are expected to be aggressive, competitive, and, often, sexually violent. In the United States, it is estimated that a woman is murdered by her spouse every 6 hours, physically assaulted every 15 seconds, and raped every 6 minutes. While these statistics may seem staggering at first, surveys of U.S. high school students reveal that more than half of those surveyed believed “that a woman dressed seductively and walking alone at night is asking to be raped.” Furthermore, more than 20% believed that if a child older than the age of 12 suffered incest, the child could be responsible for the crime, and 20% believed there were circumstances in which men had the right to engage in sexual behavior with nonconsenting females. Other studies suggest that such sexist perspectives on the part of students are not merely found in schools as one facet of society, but rather that schools serve as breeding grounds for gender inequity, hierarchies of domination and subordination, and gender-based violence that are experienced in broader society. Schools play both active and passive roles in furthering gender-based violence. Genderbased violence is actively promoted through inequitable treatment by teachers of males and females in the classroom, with studies revealing that males are much more likely to be called upon in class, to be held to high academic standards, and to be engaged in teacher–student dialogue than female students. Gender-

Gender and School Crime and Violence, High School

based violence is passively promoted through a lack of response to sexual harassment and violent incidents among students. Studies have found that the majority of gender-based violence in American schools is perpetrated by peers, usually male against female. Although females are most often the victims of violent incidents in schools, they are not the only products of a sexist and violence-based culture. Adolescence is a time of great peer pressure, as young people are learning their roles, socially and sexually in the larger world, and they are eager to fit in and find their place. Girls learn—through powerful media messaging and observation of gendered interactions at home and at school—that they are to be quiet, be submissive, and accept any abuse they experience because they probably deserve it. Conversely, boys are taught through these same venues to assert themselves, to speak up, and to dominate through their sexuality. The result is that boys and girls engage in a sort of role play, with each living up to the standards they feel have been set for them. For this trend to be reversed, schools, as one of the primary social institutions for shaping young people, need to stop their active and passive promotion of gender-based violence, and instead offer young people an alternative way of relating—one involving mutual respect, gender equity, and nonviolent conflict resolution. Several initiatives to help reverse the prevalence of gender-based violence in schools are currently in use. A conference in Massachusetts titled “Sexual Assault and Adolescents: A Hidden Epidemic” brought together educators and public health officials to discuss four aspects of gender and school violence: 1. Violence limits options and robs individuals of the freedom to develop their full potential. 2. Violence tends to occur in cycles, resulting in a perpetuation of violence. 3. Violence is pervasive in society, and modeled as a solution to conflict. 4. Boys in the United States are acculturated to exercise power over others, and one of the ways this bias is demonstrated through sexual violence. Solutions for these widespread social phenomena were discussed at the conference, and it was acknowledged that young women must be encouraged to know their own rights, protect themselves, and to have their self-esteem fostered in a school setting. Likewise, young men need to be challenged that what they have been taught are appropriate male behaviors, such as domination, entitlement, and objectification of women, are neither equitable nor appropriate; instead, they should be given a model of respect and equity toward others. As bleak as the scenario of gender-based violence may seem in the United States, conditions abroad are in many cases far worse. The Deputy Director of

205

206

Gender and School Crime and Violence, High School

the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Kenya was reported as saying, “How can a parent want to educate his daughters when learning institutions have become places and sites of rape and HIV/AIDS infection?” In many parts of the world, young women have only recently been granted the right to even attend school. But the battle does not end with getting young women into schools. In regions of sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia, in particular, although women are now allowed to attend school, they still face many obstacles. Many young women fear for their safety in school, as sexual assault from teachers and students is common. Such assaults have resulted in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), especially HIV/AIDS. According to Human Rights Watch (2001), “Left unchecked, sexual violence in schools has a negative impact on the educational and emotional needs of girls and acts as a barrier to attaining education . . . Rape and other forms of sexual violence place girls at risk of contracting the HIV/AIDS virus [which has in turn] taken its toll on the educational system and disrupted education . . . especially for girls.” Furthermore, gender equity is far from fully realized in many of these regions. Many young women must exchange sexual favors with “sugar daddies” to obtain assistance with their schoolwork or school costs. A sixth-grade student in Zimbabwe reported that her teacher had proposed to her: “He told me that he loved me and I yelled at him. After that in class he tried to hit me or send me out of class for no apparent reason. The memory makes me cry every time I think about it.” In the country of Botswana, where 10 free years of schooling is provided, 11% of girls say that they have considered dropping out of school due to sexual harassment from their teachers. For those girls who stay in school, educational achievement may still prove challenging. Sexist perspectives that disempower women and give disproportionate control to men are still widely held. Many teachers focus on the boys in the classroom to the detriment of the girls. Even in classrooms where the teacher is equitable, the curriculum conveys messages of disempowerment to women. Unfortunately, many victims of gender-based violence in schools choose not to report these crimes, as there are no real structures for redress. A teacher reported for perpetrating or allowing sexual violence in his classroom may be warned or transferred to a different school, but the scale of the situation calls for much greater measures to be taken. For instance, teachers need to be trained in gender equity and appropriate teacher–student interactions and equipped with curriculum that promotes an environment of mutual respect and equitable gender relationships. Furthermore, a system of redress, which provides not only support for victims but also standard repercussions for perpetrators, needs to be implemented. Fortunately, several such efforts toward greater gender equity and decreased gender-based violence in schools are being executed. For example, the Story Teller Group in South Africa consists of teams of teachers and students who create comics about issues of gender equity and violence as they affect young people in

Gender-Related Theories

school. An all-girl team and an all-boy team each produce a comic depicting their perspective. The two perspectives are then brought together and disseminated in theaters for the purpose of sparking discussions about gender equity. Also in South Africa, a nonprofit organization called DramAidE has collaborated with the University of Natal in an effort called “Mobilizing Young Men to Care,” which helps young men envision alternative forms of “masculinity,” and teaches respect and self-control; the same group has also worked with young girls, teaching them that they have a choice over what happens with their own bodies. In India, nongovernmental organizations are implementing Better Life Option programs, which seek to give boys aged 10 to 19 factual information about sexuality, masturbation, menstruation, and reproductive and sexual health, along with counseling and guidance in life skills and career planning. Megan Barnes Further Reading Caterina, M. (1992). Conference on sexual violence and adolescents highlights need for treatment and intervention. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from http:// www2.edc.org/WomensEquity/pubs/digests/digest-gbviolence.html Clark, S. (2001). What social workers should know about gender-based violence and the health of adolescent girls. National Association of Social Workers, 1(2). Leach, F., &Mitchell, C. (2006). Combating gender violence in and around schools. Sterling, VA: Trentham Books. Robbin, D. J. (1992). Educating against gender-based violence. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from http://www2.edc.org/WomensEquity/pubs/digests/ digest-gbviolence.html Wellesley Center for Research on Women. (2003). Unsafe schools: A literature review of school-related gender-based violence in developing countries. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from http://www.wcwonline.org

Gender-Related Theories Criminology has historically been an androcentric, or male-focused and malecentered, field. Early criminologists basically ignored female crime. Those who did discuss this issue considered it to be part of females’ pathology or hysterical nature, as psychologist Sigmund Freud suggested. A theory is based on some type of data, which may be collected from actual subjects (in surveys, in interviews, or by other means) or through secondary sources (e.g., analysis of court records, historical documents). Historically, criminologists studied only men or analyzed data only from men in developing their theories.

207

208

Gender-Related Theories

Social disorganization theory posits that certain neighborhoods are more prone to delinquency and crime because they are disorganized or chaotic. Rapid change, as suggested by Emile Durkheim, can create this disorganization. The disorganization then leads to the breakdown of social controls that would otherwise serve to constrain crime. Although other criticism has been directed at this theory, scholars today note that all the data on which it is based came from studying male delinquency rates. Similarly, Edwin Sutherland focused on male case studies to formulate his differential association theory. Sutherland’s theory, which generally posits that crime, like other behavior, is learned, is one of the most influential in criminology. The same gender bias applies to Travis Hirschi’s social bond theory, which is considered the most cited criminological theory. This theory describes which factors constrain or prevent crime, as opposed to which factors influence it. Hirschi posited that persons with strong social bonds would be less likely to offend. He articulated four qualities of social bonds: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. In the 1970s, with the rise of the women’s movement, criminologists began to pay more attention to gender as a factor in crime. In 1975, Rita Simon offered what has been called the liberation hypothesis. Simon asserted that, as women earned greater participation in the workplace, they would become more involved in certain types of crime. They would commit largely white-collar offenses, according to Simon. That same year, Freda Adler cited tremendous increases in the number of female arrests for property crimes—proof, she said, that women’s liberation was indeed leading to more and different types of female crime. Critics contended, however, that her data might have been misconstrued. Given the relatively small number of female arrests, any increase looked dramatic. Further, crime rates increased in this time period for males as well. Additionally, critics argued that the increase might have been the result of increased police attention, not actual incidence. The idea of female-oriented crime received new attention in the 1990s, as scholars, politicians, and pundits noted increases in female arrest rates. This time, female arrests for violent crime were up as well. Deborah Prothrow-Stith argued that because the United States is a culture that equates violence with power, women may resort to violence to obtain what they still lack. Several theories were developed in the 1980s and 1990s that specifically addressed female crime. In particular, John Hagan’s power-control theory sought to explain why rates of crime and violence are higher for males than for females. Power-control theory maintains that criminal behavior is influenced by family structure, which mirrors the wider patriarchal social structure. Most families in the United States are still patriarchal, in that they are characterized by fairly strict gender role division. Patriarchal families exert less control over boys than over girls, allowing boys to have more freedom and take more risks. In egalitarian

Gender-Related Theories

families, which have become more common, Hagan speculated that delinquency rates would be closer for male and female members. Some sources have pointed to sex-based hormones as the primary reason why males perpetrate more violent crime than females. Most studies have focused on male testosterone as a causative factor. Animal studies have repeatedly found those animals with less testosterone are calmer than those animals with more testosterone. Testosterone may predispose someone to react aggressively when challenged or threatened. Thus it is not just the hormone, but also the environment that matters when it comes to violence. Outside the field of criminology, some social critics have called for greater attention to be paid to the fact that virtually all school shooters have been males. For instance, Jackson Katz has been a leader in arguing that male gender socialization contributes to violence in all its forms, but in particular to violence against women. He points out that popular culture and sports encourage males to be tough, aggressive, and powerful to be considered “masculine.” In this milieu, violence against women and aggressive homophobia are regularly depicted as if they are laughing matters. In many of the school rampages, the shooters’ masculinity had been threatened, sometimes publicly. In a study of 28 random school shooters, all were found to have “overconformed” to a hyperviolent definition of power and masculinity. Sociologist Michael Kimmel has authored a number of books that make the connection between gender roles, patriarchy, and violence. Canadian shooter Marc Le´pine stated that his reason for killing 14 women and wounding 14 more at l’E´cole Polytechnique in Montreal in 1989 was because he felt women had been given preferential treatment. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Brickman, J. (1992). Feminist lives, feminist deaths: The relationship of the Montreal massacre to dissociation, incest, and violence against women. Canadian Psychology, 33(2), 128–143. Garbarino, J. (1998). Lost boys. New York: Free Press. Katz, J. (2006, October 11). Coverage of the “school shootings” avoids the central issue. Common Dreams. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from http://www.commondreams .org/views06/1011-36.htm Katz, J. (2006). The macho paradox: Why some men hurt women and how all men can help. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks. Kellner, D. (2008). Guys and guns amok: Domestic terrorism and school shootings from the Oklahoma City bombing to the Virginia Tech massacre. New York: Paradigm.

209

210

Gill, Kimveer

Kimmel, M., & Mahler, M. (2003). Adolescent masculinity, homophobia, and violence. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(10), 1439–1458. Klein, J., & Chancer, L. S. (2000). Masculinity matters: The omission of gender from high-profile school violence cases. In S. U. Spina (Ed.), Smoke and mirrors: The hidden content of violence in schools and society. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 129-162. Newman, K., Fox, C., Roth, W., & Mehta, J. (2005). Rampage: The social roots of school shootings. New York: Basic. School shootings the result of crisis of masculinity, gun culture, professor argues. (2008, February 18). Science Daily. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from http:// www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217133643.htm Tonso, K. (2009). Violent masculinities as tropes for school shooters. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1266–1285.

Gill, Kimveer At 12:30 P.M. on September 13, 2006, 25-year-old Kimveer Gill began unloading weapons from his car outside the campus of Dawson College in Montreal, Quebec. Gill was dressed all in black and wearing a trench coat. He briefly held a passerby hostage and made him carry a bag of weapons and ammunition, then began shooting outside the de Maisonneuve Boulevard entrance to the campus. Next, Gill proceeded to the atrium by the cafeteria on the main floor, where he readied himself in the corner next to a microwave oven. After firing a shot into the floor and then into the cafeteria, Gill demanded that all the students lie down on the floor. He continued shooting at them until police officers arrived, which was within three minutes of being called. At that point, Gill briefly took two more people hostage. He was shot in the arm by one of the officers, and then shot himself in the head. Officers tried to resuscitate him to no avail. In all, Gill killed one person, 18-year-old Anastasia De Sousa, and injured 19 others before he killed himself. Officers found a short suicide note on Gill’s body. Once people heard about the attack, nearby businesses went into lockdown. Two shopping centers adjacent to the campus were evacuated, as was the Pepsi Forum entertainment center, which housed an AMC Theater. Many evacuees fled to nearby Concordia University, which provided shelter, food, water, blankets, and phones. The university also put together a crisis counseling team to work with those who had been traumatized. Other students were unable or too scared to leave the campus and hid until they were escorted out by police with dogs nearly three hours later. Cell phone networks were jammed because so many people were trying to use them at the same time. Gill lived with his parents in Fabreville, north of Montreal. A search of Gill’s home found an apology note as well as a letter praising the Columbine High

Gill, Kimveer

School shooters, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris. Investigations also revealed that Gill had obtained all of the weapons he used (a Beretta Cx4 Storm Carbine, a Glock 9-mm handgun, and a Norinco HP0-1 shotgun) legally. The young man was extremely interested in video games, and he regularly posted on the site VampireFreaks.com under the name fatality666. Gill’s posts were scary, commenting on how “everything sucks” and displaying his “homicidal” mood. He was also a fan of the heavy metal band Megadeth, and had mentioned their song “A Tout Le Monde” on his blog the day of the shooting. When Megadeth performed in Montreal later that year, members of the group announced at the concert their horror over the shootings and stated that any linkage between them and Gill was unwanted. Gill had also posted several photographs of himself with various weapons, and claimed to be obsessed with guns. He described guns as “the great equalizer.” Gill was also a member of a local gun club. Former classmates at Rosemere High School called Gill a loner. After high school, he had enlisted in the Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School, but was deemed unsuitable for service and discharged a month later. He developed depression in the wake of this event, to which Gill responded by collecting firearms and spending hours at the shooting range. After the shooting, Gill’s parents, who were both in ill health, expressed their sympathy for the victims and their families but asked for privacy amid the media onslaught. Around the world, the shooting evoked images of the Columbine shootings. In Canada, however, comparisons were more often made with Marc Le´ pine’s 1989 massacre of 14 women at Montreal’s l’E´ cole Polytechnique. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper called Gill’s attack a “cowardly and senseless act of violence.” Two years later, a study by the Fernand Seguin Research Centre of Louis H. Lafontaine Hospital and McGill University Health Centre documented severe post-traumatic stress symptoms among the Dawson College community. Most students who received psychological services after the shooting rated them as satisfactory, but some groups such as college support staff and cafeteria workers felt overlooked. The gunman who shot Gill in the arm, Denis Cote, was praised for his quick response, as were the other four officers who arrived on the scene. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Authier, P., & Larouche-Smart, M. (2006, September 17). Killer’s family sorry for deadly shooting. Canada West. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from http://www2 .canada.com/topics/news/features/dawsonshooting/story.html?id=3fdeeb60 -ae01-48dd-ac5c-04dd3442df72

211

212

Glen Ridge, New Jersey, Rape Incident

College shooter Gill obsessed with guns. (2006, September 15). CBC News Canada. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/mon treal/story/2006/09/15/aftermath-shooting.html Kimveer Gill: Canada’s angel of death. (n.d.). Investigation Discovery. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from http://investigation.discovery.com/investigation/ internet-cases/gill/kimveer-gill.html Montreal gunman calls himself “angel of death.” (2006, September 14). CBC News Canada. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ story/2006/09/14/gunman-shooting.html The Montreal killer was a death-obsessed Goth. (2006, September 14). Toronto Daily News. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from http://www.torontodailynews.com/ index.php/WorldNews/2006091420montreal-gunman A study reveals the extent of the psychological impact following the tragedy on September 13, 2006. (2009, June 29). Dawson College. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from http://www.dawsoncollege.qc.ca/?676A8D5C-8835-4C47-BB13 -D0F4A59E9C8F&extendedview=1&extendedres=F1098DC2-3C1B-4B7F-94E0 -AB8C15536F1E¶meters=modView:detail%7Centry:70728596-ED24-414B -A2DA- 88F94DBACF95 Swift police action praised in Dawson College shooting. (2007, September 12). CBC News Canada. Retrieved August 24, 2009, from http://www.cbc.ca/ canada/montreal/story/2007/09/12/mtl- dawsonshooting0912.html

Glen Ridge, New Jersey, Rape Incident On March 1, 1989, a group of teenage males, including several student-athletes, lured a mentally disabled 17-year-old girl into the basement of the home of two of the athletes and raped her. One of the boys, Christopher Archer, brought the girl, whose IQ was 64, from the park where she had been playing basketball to the basement where twins Kyle and Kevin Scherzer lived. Archer had promised the girl a date with his brother, Paul, if she went with him. When they arrived, Paul Archer, the Scherzer twins, Richard Corcoran, Peter Quigley, and Bryant Grober commanded the girl to masturbate and then perform various sex acts on them. They sexually assaulted her with a broomstick and a baseball bat, and then threatened to tell her mother if she told anyone. Given the girl’s mental capacity, said to be that of an eight-year-old, she did not reveal the incident for several days. The boys, however, bragged about what they had done, and rumors began to circulate around the community. Eventually, the girl told her swimming coach at the special school she attended. The police were notified and officers questioned her as well as the boys she implicated. On May 24, 1989, the Scherzer twins, Peter

Glen Ridge, New Jersey, Rape Incident

Quigly, and the Archer brothers were arrested and charged with several crimes each. Richard Corcoran was arrested a few months later. As the boys awaited trial, the affluent town of Glen Ridge tried to make sense of what had happened. Many blamed the girl, claiming she was promiscuous and had previously exhibited inappropriate sexual behavior. Some students at Glen Ridge High School defended their classmates and athletic idols, and one even tried to trick the girl into admitting she had consented to the sex acts in the basement. Yet others defended the girl and pointed out that several of the accused had histories of violent and deviant behavior but had been allowed to act with relative impunity because of their status as jocks. Christopher Archer and Peter Quigley accepted plea bargains and agreed to work with the prosecution to testify against the others. The defense tried to paint a picture of the boys as being wholesome and the girl as a sexual deviant during the five-month trial. The prosecution introduced evidence of rape trauma syndrome, the first time such evidence had been allowed in a New Jersey court. The jury deliberated for 12 days before finding the defendants guilty of various charges. Christopher Archer and the Scherzer twins were sentenced to serve at a juvenile detention facility. Richard Corcoran was never tried and actually won a $200,000 settlement against the Essex County prosecutor’s office for malicious prosecution. The Associated Press reported in 2005 that he had shot his wife and another man and then killed himself at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where he was a Special Forces soldier. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Associated Press. (2005, February 7). Man from Glen ridge rape case kills self in bloodbath. New York Daily News. Retrieved March 9, 2011 from http://www .democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104 x3072655 Atkinson, A. (Ed.). (2009). Battleground sports, volume 2. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Finley, L. (Ed.). (2007). Encyclopedia of juvenile violence. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Finley, P., Finley, L., & Fountain, J. (2008). Sports scandals. Westport, CT: Praeger. Laufer, P. (1994). A question of consent: Innocence and complicity in Glen Ridge rape case. San Francisco, CA: Mercury House. Lefkowitz, B. (1997). Our guys. New York: Vintage.

213

214

Goss v. Lopez

Goss v. Lopez In Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a school must conduct a hearing before subjecting a student to suspension. Failure to hold such a hearing constitutes a due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process and equal protection with respect to the laws of the state. In the Goss case, nine named students, including Dwight Lopez, were suspended from school for 10 days for destroying school property. At the time, Ohio law allowed schools to suspend students without a hearing. Lopez testified that at least 75 other students were suspended on the same day. The events in question transpired at Marion-Franklin High School, where several students were actively engaged in protests against the Vietnam War. The school had been consumed by a general state of unrest in February to March of 1971. Tyrone Washington, another of the defendants, was accused of demonstrating in the school auditorium while a class was in session and refusing to leave when asked. As he was escorted from the auditorium, Rudolph Sutton physically attacked a police officer. All of the other named defendants were suspended for similar conduct. No student was given a hearing to determine the facts of the incident. The students and parents were invited to attend a conference subsequent to the suspension to discuss the students’ futures. The appeal to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio was initiated by the Columbus, Ohio, Public School System (CPSS), which was seeking to overturn the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs made by the lower court. CPSS lost its appeal, with the U.S. Supreme Court asserting that because Ohio had declared education to be a right, it could not deny this right to citizens without due process of law. The Supreme Court’s decision largely echoed the reasoning of the District Court, which had established public education as a property interest requiring due process protection. The Supreme Court went to great care not to overly burden school administrators with precise rules for the handling of suspensions. Its ruling applied to short suspensions, less than 10 days according to Ohio law, suggesting that more procedural safeguards might be necessary for longer suspensions. The Court also suggested that its decision would not place any more burden on school administrators than a fair-minded administrator would already assume to prevent unfair suspensions. The majority opinion was written by Justice Byron White, with Justices William O. Douglas, Potter Stewart, William Brennan, and Thurgood Marshall joining the opinion. The dissent was written by Justice Lewis Powell and joined by Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justices William Rehnquist and Harry

Gun Control Legislation

Blackmun. The decision split along tradition liberal/conservative lines. Interestingly, long-time conservative Justice Harry Blackmun, who sided with the conservative faction in Goss, would go on to become the leading liberal on the Supreme Court. Nick Sciullo Further Reading Goss v. Lopez: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_73_898

Gun Control Legislation In 1791, the United States Constitution was ratified. The Second Amendment of the Constitution states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This amendment has since been debated in the courts and legislatures. Over the years, the U.S. Congress has enacted a variety of legislation for the purpose of regulating the sales and possession of firearms. In 1934, Congress passed the National Firearms Act, which established strict registration requirements and placed a transfer tax on machine guns and short-barreled long guns. Four years later, in 1938, Congress enacted the Federal Firearms Act, which provided for the licensing of all manufacturers and dealers in the interstate commerce of firearms. Criminals were banned from either receiving or sending firearms in interstate or foreign commerce. Stolen firearms and those with obliterated serial numbers were barred from such commerce. In 1968, Congress passed the Gun Control Act, which prohibited mail-order sales and interstate sales of firearms by licensed dealers. This legislation also added convicted felons, persons who had been found mentally incompetent, and drug users to the list of persons banned from possessing firearms. Furthermore, it prohibited transfers of firearms to minors, limited access to “new” assault weapons, and set forth penalties and licensing requirements for manufacturers, importers, and dealers. In 1996, the Lautenberg Amendment amended the Gun Control Act of 1968. This legislation expanded the group of persons banned from possessing firearms to include persons who had ever been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, including those whose convictions had occurred prior the 1996 enactment of the Lautenberg Amendment. In effect, the amendment made domestic violence a felony for anyone convicted of this crime. It also added individuals under a domestic restraining order to the class of persons prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.

215

216

Gun Control Legislation

In 1994, Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. It established a national waiting period of five business days for handgun purchases from a licensed dealer. This bill further required local authorities to conduct background checks on handgun purchasers. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Printz v. United States (1997), ruled that the provision compelling state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks mandated by federal law was unconstitutional. The Court determined that this provision violated both the concept of federalism and the concept of the unitary executive. Justice Antonin Scalia opined that the Framers designed the Constitution to allow federal regulation of the people, not the federal White House press secretary James Brady was regulation of the states. The Court shot in the head during the failed assassination also offered an alternative basis for attempt directed at President Ronald Reagan on striking down the provision, stating March 30, 1981. Brady’s efforts resulted in the that it violated the constitutional sepapassage of the Brady Handgun Violence ration of powers by robbing the Prevention Act of 1993. (Ronald Reagan president of his power to execute the Presidential Library) laws; that is, the law contradicted the unitary executive theory. The Court did allow for state and local law enforcement officials to conduct the background checks if they so chose, and many continued to do so under appropriate state law. Individual states have addressed the issue of citizens carrying concealed weapons, primarily handguns. “Concealed carry” is the legal authorization for private citizens to carry a handgun or other weapons in public in a concealed manner, either on the person or in close proximity to the person. As of February 2008, 48 U.S. states allowed some form of concealed carry. In 39 concealed-carry states, issuing officials may not arbitrarily deny a concealed-carry application, a practice known as “shall issue.” Nine states have “may issue” or “discretionary issue” laws requiring the applicant to demonstrate a specific need for concealed carry. These “may issue” states range from “shall issue” in practice, such as Alabama, Connecticut, and Iowa; to “at the whim of local officials,” such as New York,

Gun Control Legislation

Massachusetts, and California (where rural officials more liberally issue permits but urban officials seldom do); to “almost non-issue,” in states such as Maryland and New Jersey; to “never-issue” Hawaii, where, although state law allows for the issuance of permits, officials choose not to issue them under any circumstances. As of July 2008, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Washington, D.C., had no provision for legal concealed-carry. In 2004, Congress enacted the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. This legislation allows the “qualified law enforcement officer” and the “qualified retired law enforcement officer” to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States. This law is subject to few state or local law exceptions (18 U.S.C.926). In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a District of Columbia law that banned handgun possession by simultaneously making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns. The law further provided that no person could carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorized the police chief to issue a one-year license. In addition, the District law required residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. The Supreme Court held that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violated the Second Amendment, as did its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. In 1990, Congress enacted the Gun Free School Zones Act (18 U.S.C. §, 922). This act made it a federal offense “for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of this legislation. In the United States v. Lopes (1995), the Court held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power. In 1994, Congress enacted the Gun-Free Schools Act (20 U.S.C.§ 8921). This act required that each state receiving federal funds for its schools pass a state law requiring local schools to expel from school for a period of not less than one year any student who is determined to have brought a weapon to a school. In 2008, the state of Ohio passed legislation referred to as the Castle Doctrine (SB 184). A provision in this legislation allowed persons to convey firearms on school property if that person (1) is carrying a valid concealed handgun license, (2) is the driver or passenger in the vehicle in the school zone while immediately in the process of picking up or dropping off a child, and (3) is not in violation of the “improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle” code. The recent shooting incidents on college campuses have spawned a movement to permit those students, faculty, and staff who are licensed to do so, to carry a concealed firearm on campus. Georgia House Bill 915, also known as the “Second Amendment Protection Act of 2008,” allows permit holders to carry a

217

218

Gun Control Legislation

concealed weapon on college campuses. Colorado State University is one of the few campuses where students are permitted to carry concealed weapons provided they possess a concealed weapon permit. Its policy allows students with a permit to carry their handgun most places on campus, including classrooms but not residence halls. Arizona Senator Karen Johnson sponsored an amendment to Arizona’s concealed carry legislation that would allow persons with valid permits to carry a concealed weapon on college campuses (SB 1214). Since the ratification of the Constitution of the United States in 1791, the right of an individual to possess a firearm has routinely been addressed by legislative action and judicial ruling. While the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that a ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment, it left many issues unsettled. Further attempts by the legislature and the judiciary to define the rights of the individual within the guidelines of the Second Amendment will be forthcoming. Dennis Bulen Further Reading Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1983, Pub.L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536. Concealed Weapons, School Grounds, Arizona SB 1214 (2008). District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. (2008). Federal Firearms Act, ch. 850, 52 Stat. 1259 (1938). Georgia HB 915, 08 LC 28 3829 (2008). Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c), (1970), amended 1996: http:// www.gunlawnews.org/GCA-68.html Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A) (1988 ed., Supp. V). Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, 20 U.S.C., ch 70 § 8921 (1994). National Firearms Act, ch. 757, 48 Stat, 1236 (1934). Ohio SB 184, 127th General Assembly (2008) (enacted). Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). Right to carry. (2008). National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

H Hamilton, Thomas Thomas Hamilton was a Scottish school shooter who committed the deadliest mass homicide in the recent history of the United Kingdom. On March 13, 1996, Thomas Watt Hamilton, an unemployed 43-year-old former shopkeeper and Boy Scout leader, entered the Dunblane Primary School in the north-central Scottish town of Dunblane and murdered 16 children and one adult before committing suicide. Hamilton first cut the telephone lines to the Dunblane School at an outside pole and then entered the school through a door adjacent to the gymnasium. He was wearing four holsters carrying two 9-mm Browning HP pistols and two Smith & Wesson .357-Magnum revolvers. He also carried 743 rounds of ammunition and was wearing ear protection on his head. After gaining entry to the school, Hamilton began shooting at the first teachers and students he saw in a corridor. He then walked into the gymnasium and opened fire on a class of five- and sixyear-olds. The children were sitting on the gym floor in a play circle, and many died instantly with gunshot wounds to the head. Others fled in several directions. Fifteen children and one teacher, Gwen Mayor, were killed. At least one child played dead and was not shot. Hamilton then exited the gymnasium and went outside to a playground. He fired numerous bullets into the outer wall of a mobile classroom in which other students were gathered for class. A teacher in the mobile classroom had directed her students to hide under their tables, so Hamilton’s bullets struck only walls, bookshelves, and equipment. For unknown reasons, Hamilton returned to the gymnasium and fired his last shot into his own mouth, killing himself instantly. An investigation later concluded that Hamilton fired a total of 109 bullets in all. Speculation circulated that Hamilton was motivated by shame or humiliation stemming from police inquiries into his suspicious behavior toward young boys

219

220

Hamilton, Thomas

at youth clubs he operated. Complaints had been made for several years that Hamilton had a perverse obsession with children, especially young boys. His summer camp business, which he operated in the early 1990s, catered to young Scottish boys in the area and often subjected the boys to rough exercises and militaristic regimentation. Hamilton was said to require the boys to engage in rigorous exercise with their shirts off, and he often photographed them. Letters by Hamilton before the Dunblane massacre indicated that rumors about him had caused the failure of his shop business in 1993. Hamilton had never married and lived a relatively reclusive personal life. Although Hamilton had a clean arrest record, he was well known to police agencies in central Scotland. Central Scotland’s Child Protection Unit had investigated complaints that Hamilton had committed assault, obstruction of justice, and multiple violations of the Scottish Children and Young Persons Act at his Loch Lomond summer camp, although no action was taken and no formal charges were filed. Less than two years before the Dunblane massacre, Hamilton had been confronted by police in Edinburgh, Scotland, after he was found with his trousers down in a “compromising position” with a young man. In the aftermath of the Dunblane killings, numerous political leaders and British celebrities visited the site. A funeral for the victims was broadcast live throughout Great Britain and was watched by a high percentage of the population. The Dunblane Primary School gymnasium was demolished shortly after the massacre and replaced by a small garden with a simple plaque bearing the names of the victims. A larger memorial garden was created at the town’s cemetery, where most of the murdered victims were buried. Within six weeks after the shooting, an anti-gun petition with 705,000 signatures was delivered to the British Parliament. In 1997, a series of restrictive gun laws banned private ownership of handguns in the United Kingdom. These gun laws make England one of the world’s most highly regulated nations in the world with regard to handguns. Even some of Great Britain’s Olympic handgun shooting athletes must now train in Switzerland and other countries. These historic political changes left many people asking whether the Dunblane massacre was exploited for political gain by politicians and gun control advocates. Conspiracy theorists have repeatedly suggested that Thomas Hamilton was a member of British Intelligence agencies, that the shooting was a freemason plot, or that he belonged to one of the Northern Ireland terrorist organizations. Such conspiracy theories have been fueled by the secretive nature of the investigations that followed the massacre. For example, the results of the Cullen Inquiry into the episode were only partially published, with a 100-year restriction placed on some of its findings. Roger I. Roots

Hamilton Fish Institute

Further Reading Bell, R. (n.d.). The Dunblane massacre. TruTV. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/dunblane_massacre/ index.html Hodgson, M. (2008, June 5). Murray describes fight to cope with trauma of Dunblane School killings. The Guardian (UK). Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/jun/05/tennis.scotland Lieberman, J. ( 2008). School shootings: What every parent and educator needs to know to protect our children. Yucca Valley, CA: Citadel. Massacre in Dunblane school gym. (n.d.). BBC. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/13/newsid_2543000/ 2543277.stm Uttley, S. (2006). Dunblane unburied London: Book Publishing World.

Hamilton Fish Institute The Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence is located at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., and housed in the Graduate School of Education and Human Development there. The Institute was established in 1997 through aid from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, and the U.S. Department of Justice. It was named after U.S. Senator Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York (1926–1996). As a senator from the state of New York from 1969 until 1996, Fish was a participant in the group that framed both the mission and the intellectual foundation of the Institute. The Hamilton Fish Institute fulfills its mission by working with seven other institutions and projects around the United States. Since 2001, it has worked with the Boston Trauma Center, which offers counseling to children and their families in the eastern part of Massachusetts. Since 1997, Atlanta’s Morehouse School of Medicine’s Violence Prevention Coalition Project has been studying school violence in African American–dominated middle schools in Georgia. Eastern Kentucky University began working on its Violence Prevention Project with the Fish Institute in 1999; this project concentrates on rural high schools. Also in 1999, Syracuse University in New York State started a Violence Prevention Project to study urban school violence in the Syracuse City School District. In 1997, the University of Oregon started its Institute on Violence and Destructive Behaviors, which works with the Hamilton Fish Institute to “study the conditions, developmental processes, and risk-protective factors that are related to the prevention of violence, school failure, delinquency and other destructive outcomes

221

222

Hate Crimes, College

among at-risk children and adolescents.” Recently the Institute on Violence and Destructive Behaviors has been focusing on the study of teenage girls. Two additional members of the consortium working with the Hamilton Fish Institute are the Stafford County schools in Fredericksburg, Virginia, and a research team at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Since 1999, the Stafford County schools have been looking at problems in both rural and suburban Virginia. The University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee and its research team joined the Hamilton Fish Institute in 2001. In collaboration with both the Milwaukee Public Schools and the Milwaukee Police Department, and with the Hamilton Fish Institute, they have created a Violence Prevention Curriculum for Adolescents that is being implemented and assessed in Milwaukee. The Hamilton Fish Institute has also created, along with the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 12 guidebooks in two series—Creating Safer Schools and Communities and Providing Quality Youth Mentoring in Schools and Communities— that are offered free to the public on the institute’s website (www.hamfish.org). Besides developing these publications, the Institute has created programs for various schools on ways to deal with violence on campus. For example, it has successfully run programs for universities that train resident advisors in dormitories how to deal with either violent students or potentially violent students. Scott Sheidlower Further Reading About the institute: About our name. (2007). Washington, DC: George Washington University, Hamilton Fish institute. Retrieved December 14, 2008, from http://www.hamfish.org/ George Washington University, Washington, DC: Hamilton Fish institute [Home page]. (2007). Retrieved December 13, 2008, from http://www.hamfish.org/ Publications: School safety and mentoring guides. (2007). Washington, DC: George Washington University, Hamilton Fish institute. Retrieved December 14, 2008, from http://www.hamfish.org/

Hate Crimes, College Hate crimes have been defined as criminal incidents that are specifically motivated by bias. They range from threats to physical assault to vandalism and other property crimes. Experts say hate crimes differ from other crimes in that they are almost always perpetrated by young, white men as random, spontaneous acts against strangers; they are far more likely to result in excessive violence; and they generally involve more than one offender. Many perpetrators are “thrill seekers”

Hate Crimes, College

who are looking for fun and peer validation. Others are more reactive, offending based on some perceived injustice connected to the targeted individual or group. Contrary to what many believe, and what is presented in popular films such as Higher Learning, most hate crimes are not committed by members of organized hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan or Aryan Nation. Examples of college-based hate crimes in recent years include the drawing of racial epithets on students’ dorm-room doors and in restrooms, burning of swastikas, parties where fraternities and other groups dress up and stage mock lynchings and “border control” actions, threatening emails to minority faculty members and letters to interracial couples, vandalism of worship centers, physical assaults, and more. College students are most likely to be victimized by other college students. One difficulty in measuring hate crimes is that definitions and laws vary tremendously. In addition, the federal government began tracking hate crimes, through the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, only in 1990. In some states, gender and sexual orientation are included in the definition of such crimes, while in others they are not. Campuses may also be reluctant to label an offense as a hate crime, because doing so may reflect negatively on the school. Police are not always well trained in investigating hate crimes, especially those working on campuses. Further, if police are investigating a hate crime on campus, they may not report it to campus authorities. As a consequence, the incident may not be reported as a campus-based hate crime. Additionally, many victims do not report hate crimes. A study by the National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence (NIAPV) found nonreporting rates between 80% and 94%. Students say they do not report incidents because they do not perceive them as being serious, they do not believe school officials would or could do anything, and they are worried about retaliation. Studies of gay and lesbian victims have found they are particularly unlikely to report hate incidents because of fear of additional attacks. Given these multiple issues with current statistics, Howard Clery III, Executive Director of Security on Campus, Inc., argues that it would be safe to quadruple the number of incidents found in law enforcement or campus-based reports. One of the first studies of hate crimes on college campuses was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) in 1998. This study included 450 higher education institutions in 40 different states. Of the 450 institutions surveyed, 222 (49%) reported a hate crime on campus in 1998, with a total of 241 incidents occurring on campuses that year. The most common motivation for hate crimes cited in the FBI report was racial prejudice, followed by anti-Semitism, bias against sexual orientation, and “other” biases. The International Association of College Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA) also conducted a study in 1998, surveying 411 campuses in the United States. In this study, 88 of the 411 campuses reported a hate crime incident, with these campuses averaging 3.8 hate crimes in that year.

223

224

Hate Crimes, College

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a leader in studying hate crimes and pursuing legal action against hate groups, suggests that hate crime rates are actually far higher. Its researchers assert that more than half a million college students are the targets of bias-motivated slurs or physical assault each year, and state that an incident occurs each day on college campuses. A major factor in this widespread prevalence is the tolerance for biased speech on college campuses. SPLC maintains that students on campuses hear racist, homophobic, sexist, or other biased-speech every minute. No campus is immune to the problem, with small and large, urban and rural, public and private colleges all experiencing hate crimes. Similarly, Baltimore’s The Prejudice Institute, which has studied campus-based “ethno-violence” for almost two decades, estimates that between 850,000 and 1 million students are targeted by hate crimes each year. Ethno-violence includes racial and ethnically motivated name calling, emails, phone calls, verbal aggression, and other forms of psychological and physical incidents. The NIAPV estimates that 20% to 25% of minority students are the targets of ethno-violence each year. Some sources have argued that the problem of campus hate crime has been exaggerated. They cite examples where students have made false claims as a means of getting attention, such as when a group of African American students hung a black doll from a tree and then blamed the mock lynching on white students. In the 1980s and 1990s, in response to increasing verbal and physical incidents, campuses began establishing discrimination and harassment policies. These policies came under scrutiny, however, as impinging on free expression and as overly broad. The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated some of these policies in Doe v. University of Michigan in 1989 and other cases. The Court did decide, in Wisconsin v. Mitchell in 1993, that states have the right to enact hate crime statutes that specify enhanced penalties for such offenses. These laws might provide a model for campus codes that authorize penalty enhancements for bias-motivated incidents Experts have identified a number of factors that contribute to hate crimes, including lack of knowledge, the influence of peer groups, group rivalry, increased presence of minorities on campuses, and inadequate legal protection. In its guide titled “10 Ways to Fight Hate on Campus,” Teaching Tolerance provides recommendations for student organizing against these factors, including meetings, vigils, marches, making ribbons, buttons, or other gear; offering support for victimized individuals and groups; and pledging unity. Students are encouraged to speak out and to condemn biased acts. Administrators are encouraged to develop clear codes of conduct for all persons on campus as well as protocols for handling hate crime incidents, to promote civil discourse, to respond swiftly when

Hazing, College

an incident occurs, and to offer courses and other programs that foster dialogue about rights, responsibilities, diversity, and other related topics. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Downey, J., & Stage, F. (1999, Jan/Feb). Hate crimes and violence on college and university campuses. Journal of College Student Development. Retrieved August 22, 2009, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3752/is_199901/ ai_n8840639/ Hate crimes on campus: The problem and efforts to confront Ii. (2001, October). U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved August 22, 2009, from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/187249.pdf Sanders, J. (1998, September 14). Hoax crimes. National Review. Retrieved August 22, 2009, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17 _v50/ai_21129275/ 10 ways to fight hate on campus. (n.d.). Teaching Tolerance. Retrieved August 22, 2009, from http://www.tolerance.org/campus/ Tompkins, R. (N.d.). Briefing paper: Hate crimes on the college campus. School Violence Resource Center. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http:// www.arsafeschools.com/Files/Hate%20CrimesBP.doc Willoughby, B. (2003, June 13). Hate on campus. Teaching Tolerance. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_tol.jsp?id=780

Hazing, College While definitions of hazing can vary, they typically include two main elements: (1) the initiation of new members of a particular group by more senior members and (2) activities that result in physical, psychological, and/or emotional harm. Hazing is a form of power exerted by senior members of a group over new members wishing to gain acceptance. This practice may also be referred to as initiations, initiation rites, and initiation rituals. Reports indicate that more than 80% of high school and college students experience some form of hazing in the United States. In an attempt to curb harmful initiation activities, 43 states have implemented legal statutes against hazing. Each of these states has its own distinct statutes that have variable definitions of hazing and different penalties for engaging in activities associated with hazing. Activities involving hazing are difficult to police, as they often occur in private with few official reports ever being made. The secrecy of these acts also makes it difficult to gauge just how prevalent the problem is in colleges in the United

225

226

Hazing, College

States. When reports are made, it is generally because the activities went beyond humiliation and psychological harm, and caused serious physical harm, even death. Reports indicate that at least 75 students have been killed, accidentally or otherwise, during acts of hazing in the United States. Hazing is difficult to stop because of its cyclical nature. New members of a particular group eventually become senior members, and they often duplicate the harm they received by hazing new members. Hazing has a long history on college campuses in the United States. It is believed to have been started by fraternal organizations hundreds of years ago. Members of the Freemasons structured their organization in the Fraternities, sororities, and school clubs set up booths during freshman week outside the form of lodges, which were also University of Toronto. Although hazing among high termed “rites.” When new members school and college organizations can be fun, some went through an initiation process to forms can be dangerous to initiates. (iStockPhoto) join these lodges, they went through a passage into the rite. The Freemasons secret society formed a model for other secret societies and college fraternities. The first college fraternity in the United States was Phi Beta Kappa, founded in 1776. Since its establishment, college fraternities have flourished across the United States. Hazing on college campuses typically occurs in three groups: fraternities, athletic teams, and religious organizations. More generally, hazing is common within the U.S. military. Hazing is not limited to these specific groups, as it can occur whenever new members attempt to join a group, such as in marching bands, social clubs, multicultural organizations, dormitories, and work settings. Fraternities often use hazing to decide who to initiate into their group. This practice is part of a selection process that is often rooted in the unique traditions of the particular fraternity. Such traditions are passed on from year to year and are difficult to stop regardless of the threat of legal sanction. In contrast, on athletic teams, hazing often occurs when new members, termed rookies, have already made a team. Hazing activities might be limited to the preseason, or they might persist throughout the entire duration of the season against first-year athletes. Although hazing is most common on team sports, it also occurs in individual-based sports such as tennis.

Hazing, College

Hazing can take on many forms, with varying degrees of severity. Three main types of hazing can be distinguished: subtle, psychological, and violent. These categories are not mutually exclusive, however, as a particular act might encompass all three. Examples of subtle hazing could include deprivation of privileges, being forced to do meaningless tasks, social isolation, gossip, and name calling. The severity of these cases is typically minimal, although individuals can be emotionally harmed by such behaviors. Psychological hazing may include threats, verbal abuse, being forced to dress in opposite-gender clothing, sleep deprivation, and being forced to harass others. Violent hazing, the most severe form, sometimes results in criminal penalty or academic reprimand in many colleges. Violent hazing can include forced alcohol or drug consumption, ingestion of vile substances such as gasoline, public nudity, being forced to commit an illegal act, sexual prodding, and kidnapping. Violent hazing can result in serious harm, even death. Institutional responses to hazing vary by state and by severity of the offense. In some instances, legal action is taken when police file charges against the individuals who perpetrated the hazing. This crime may be charged as a felony carrying the possibility of jail time in some states, or as a misdemeanor offense in other states. Each state, apart from a few, has its own legal statutes pertaining to hazing. The seven states that have not passed such legislation are Alaska, Hawaii, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Wyoming. This does not mean that individuals who engage in hazing activities in these states are immune from civil and criminal liability; rather, it indicates that these states do not have laws that specifically address hazing. Institutional responses to hazing might also be handled by the administration of the particular college where the activities took place. Most colleges and universities in the United States have a policy that strictly forbids hazing; however, many have provisions that do not bar athletic teams from engaging in such activities as long as they do not produce serious harm. Likewise, many state laws do not forbid hazing in college fraternities and on athletic teams. Disciplinary actions by school officials in instances of hazing can involve anything from a verbal reprimand to expulsion from the college or university. Many theories exist as to why hazing occurs and the purpose that it serves. One theory suggests that it is used as a tool of solidarity to unite new members through the shared secrecy of the hazing activities. Another theory is that individuals feel more attached to a particular group if they had to work hard or endure pain to gain entrance into the group. Others propose that hazing is the result of a cycle of violence, whereby individuals haze others as payback for the harm that was perpetrated against them. Hazing has also been perceived as an exercise of power stemming from the inherent hierarchies present in the structure of groups; it can be explained as a power struggle for dominance and control within a group.

227

228

Hazing, High School

Other sources suggest that hazing exists and persists because groups are not provided with other viable options for initiating members into a group. Curtis Fogel Further Reading Guynn, K. L., & Aquila, F. D. (2005). Hazing in high schools: Causes and consequences. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Johnson, J., & Holman, M. (Eds.). (2004). Making the team: The inside world of sport initiations and hazing. Toronto: Canadian Scholar’s Press. Nuwer, H. (2001). Wrongs of passage: Fraternities, sororities, hazing and binge drinking. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Nuwer, H. (2004). The hazing reader. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Hazing, High School Hazing is the process of initiating new recruits into a particular group by way of some challenge or request. These challenges or requests are intended to humiliate or degrade the new recruit. Hazing might include physical or emotional degradation, such as being denied privileges, being forced to perform menial tasks, being called names, and even being coerced or forced into performing of sex acts. Sometimes it involves one night of activity; in other cases, it may last for weeks. Many times, new recruits agree to participate because they want to be included in the group. Their consent, however, does not make the hazing acceptable. The military, fraternities and sororities, and athletic teams are all known to haze new members. However, it is not just these groups that haze individuals, in particular at the high school level. Many dismiss hazing as trivial and even amusing, but it can actually be quite dangerous. Alcohol is often involved, which escalates the risk associated with this practice. Most schools and colleges ban hazing, but such regulations are difficult to enforce as there is often a “code of silence” whereby no one tells authorities what happened. A study by researchers at Alfred University found that 48% of high school students who belonged to some group had been hazed. Of these individuals, 43% found the practice to be terribly humiliating. Most were hazed starting at age 15, and those in multiple groups endured multiple incidents of hazing. Although males tended to both haze and be hazed more frequently than females, females also reported such behavior. Those with lower grade-point averages were more likely to be hazed. Although hazing was most common among athletic groups, 24% of those involved with church-related clubs also reported being hazed.

Hazing, High School

Participants and the general public often defend hazing, saying it is not harmful and is an important tradition to increase group identity and unity. Experts counter that there are other, better ways to create unity among teammates or members in a group. Although hazing is not often covered in the media, it has gained national attention when the results are particularly disturbing. Such was the case in 1988, when one sophomore was allegedly forced to insert his finger into the anus of another sophomore in front of 20 to 30 onlookers at a football camp for players at Lyndhurst High School in New Jersey. In 1992, teammates held a 15-year-old boy wrestler down while some sodomized him with a mop. He suffered internal bleeding and had to be hospitalized for a week. In 1996, team captain Travis Hawk pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor hazing charge after sodomizing several freshman football players with shampoo bottles at Alexander High School in Ohio. In 1999, one basketball player was expelled and six others suspended from North Branch High School in Michigan after they hit a freshman player in the genitals with a wire hanger, sprayed another with urine from a shampoo bottle, and forced another’s face into the buttocks of an older player. Also in 1999, a football player from McAlester High School in Oklahoma suffered a head injury when he was jumped by a group of team members in the locker room. Mepham High School in Long Island, New York, drew unwanted national attention when a group of football players sodomized freshman with broomsticks, pine cones, and golf balls. They also sprayed the young players with shaving cream, put powderpuff and gel in their eyes and hair, and ripped the hair from their legs and buttocks with duct tape. The older players had planned the assaults in advance of heading to the team camp where it occurred, bringing all the items they used with them as well as stereos to cover up the noise. The school board eventually cancelled the season and the assailants were charged with aggravated assault, kidnapping, and unlawful restraint. Not long after the Long Island events, media attention was again drawn to a hazing incident. This time, the event involved females playing in an off-campus “powder football” game. Thirty-one senior girls were expelled after they kicked, punched, and beat junior girls. Some younger players were doused with urine, paint, fish guts, trash, pig intestines, and feces. In 2008, varsity cheerleaders at Morton Ranch High School in Texas bound and blindfolded junior varsity cheerleaders and then threw them into a swimming pool. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Atkinson, M. (ed.). (2009). Battleground sports, volume 1. Westport, CT: Praeger. Eriksen, H., Rogers, B., & Turner, A. (2008, November 20). Morton Ranch cheerleaders indicted in hazing. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://www.chron.com/ disp/story.mpl/nb/katy/news/6120825.html

229

230

Hazing Laws

Finley, P., & Finley, L. (2006). The sports industry’s war on athletes. Westport, CT: Praeger. High school hazing. (n.d.). Alfred University Hazing Site: www.alfred.edu/ hs_hazing Nuwer, H. (2000). High school hazing: When rites become wrongs. New York: Franklin Watts. Nuwer, H. (Ed.). (2004). The hazing reader. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Stop Hazing: www.stophazing.org

Hazing Laws Hazing can be defined as a rite of passage wherein new members of a particular group are taken through traditional practices by more senior members so as to initiate them into the next stage of their involvement in the group. The term “hazing” can also be referred to as initiations, initiation rites, and initiation rituals. In the United States, 43 states have statutes against hazing. Each of these states has its own statutes, and collectively they use variable definitions of hazing and apply different penalties for engaging in activities associated with hazing. Despite these statutes, hazing remains a common problem in the United States, with reports indicating that more than 80% of high school and university students experience some form of hazing. The actual rates of hazing are difficult to gauge, as this activity usually occurs in private with few official legal reports ever being made. Most legal cases involving hazing fall under tort law. Tort law addresses personal injury claims where compensation is typically sought. Compensation for personal injury caused by hazing is often sought either from the individuals who committed the act of hazing or from the school or governing body where the act occurred. High schools and universities in the United States have been held liable in cases involving hazing for appearing negligent or breaching their duty of care for their students. Legal cases involving hazing can also involve criminal law. Criminal charges are often pursued that relate to the specific acts occurring during a hazing incident, such as physical or sexual assault. In Canada, other charges are pursued in all criminal cases involving hazing, as no legal statutes exist specifically to address this form of abuse. Such statutes do exist throughout most of the United States, although seven states—Alaska, Hawaii, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Wyoming—currently do not have legal statutes against hazing including. This does not mean that individuals who engage in hazing activities in these

Honor Codes

seven states are immune from civil and criminal liability; rather, it indicates that these states simply do not have laws that specifically address hazing. In the states that have legal statues pertaining to hazing, the intent and scope of the statutes can vary widely. In Illinois, engaging in hazing that is not authorized by an educational institution and causes serious bodily harm can result in a Class 4 felony, which typically results in a two- to three-year period of incarceration. In California, individuals can be charged with a misdemeanor for committing acts of hazing or for conspiring to commit such acts. The fine for a hazing misdemeanor in California ranges from $100 to $5,000, and the sentence can include up to one year in prison. In Nevada, a person committing acts associated with hazing is guilty of a misdemeanor if no substantial bodily harm results or of a gross misdemeanor if serious bodily harm occurs; the latter offense may result in up to one year in prison or a $2,000 fine. In Vermont, a statute exists against the perpetration of hazing, attempting to participate in an act of hazing, or failing to prevent an act of hazing; however, no predetermined penalty for these offenses has been established. Despite the existence of these laws, reports indicate that the presence, type, and severity of hazing statutes have done little to curb the prevalence of hazing in the United States. Curtis Fogel Further Reading Guynn, K. L., & Aquila, F. D. (2005). Hazing in high schools: Causes and consequences. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Johnson, J., & Holman, M. (Eds.). (2004). Making the team: the inside world of sport initiations and hazing. Toronto: Canadian Scholar’s Press. Nuwer, H. (2001). Wrongs of passage: Fraternities, sororities, hazing and binge drinking. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Nuwer, H. (2004). The hazing reader. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Honor Codes The first honor code in America was established in 1779 at The College of William and Mary. It was created at the request of then-Governor Thomas Jefferson, who had graduated from the university in 1762. The code was to be policed by students. Jefferson went on to recommend a similar honor code at the University of Virginia (UVA), but it was never established. UVA had a tumultuous beginning, rife with conflicts between students and faculty. These battles reached a peak on November 12, 1840, when professor John Davis was shot while trying to disperse a conflict on campus. He refused to

231

232

Honor Codes

identify his assailant, calling on any honorable persons to identify themselves. Shortly thereafter, in 1842, Henry St. George Tucker, an alumnus of the College of William and Mary who had replaced Davis on the UVA faculty, recommended that students submit their examinations with a signed statement declaring their honor and stating that they had received no assistance on the assignment. Although the wording of the honor code has changed over time, it remains in place today. Today, honor offenses at UVA include lying, cheating, and stealing. UVA’s system is also unusual in that it remains student run. Only Princeton University has maintained a student-run honor code since its code was created in 1893. At most colleges and universities, honor codes address only academic issues. The U.S. federal military academies (the U.S. Naval Academy, the U.S. Military Academy, the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy) have the strictest honor codes. They govern academics, but also the cadets’ behavior at all times, both on and off campus. A cadet is considered to have violated the honor code when she or he even tolerates another student committing a violation. Cadets must turn in the violator at all of the military academies, with the exception of the U.S. Naval Academy, as its honor code allows observers to confront the accused without formally reporting the violation. A few universities have established very stringent honor codes. HampdenSydney College, an all-male school, has an honor code that covers student behavior on and off campus, and off-campus behavior can be prosecuted. It also considers toleration of violation to be a violation itself, just as the military codes do. Brigham Young University (BYU) also has a very strict honor code, prohibiting drinking, smoking, and premarital sex. Men must be clean and shaven, and no revealing clothing is allowed. The strictness and specificity of BYU’s code reflect the Mormon influence at the university. How honor codes are enforced differs from campus to campus. In many cases, students vote to ratify the code each year and can suggest changes to it. Some have a specific group that enforces the code, such as Haverford College’s Honor Council. Research suggests that honor codes are effective when they help create a peer culture that reinforces ethical behavior. A survey conducted by the Center for Academic Integrity found that 23% of students at colleges with honor codes reported cheating on a test or exam in the previous year, compared to 45% of students at colleges with no honor code. Honor codes do not fix all of a school’s problems, of course. In 1951, an academic cheating scandal erupted at West Point, a school with a well-known honor code. At the end, 90 cadets ended up resigning from the academy, including 37 football players. All were found to have violated the school’s honor code when upper classmen “tutored” them.

Houston, Eric

Research and reports documenting high levels of cheating at colleges and universities have prompted renewed interest in honor codes. In a survey conducted in 2005, approximately half of the college students admitted to at least one serious incident of cheating in the previous academic year, and two-thirds admitted to questionable activity, such as working in a group on assignments when directions specified the work was to be done independently. At the high school level, almost two-thirds of students reported one or more explicit incident of cheating in the previous year. A 2002 study of 12,000 high school students found 74% admitted to cheating in the past year. Author David Callahan has called the United States “a culture of cheats,” asserting that individualism and cut-throat, competitive environments lead many astray. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Callaghan, D. (2004). The cheating culture: Why more Americans are doing wrong to get ahead. New York: Harcourt. Finley, P., & Finley, L. (2006). The sports industry’s war on athletes. Westport, CT: Praeger. McCabe, D., & Pavela, G. (2005, March 11). New honor codes for a new generation. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http:// www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/03/11/pavela1

Houston, Eric On May 1, 1992, 20-year-old Eric Houston, a former student, entered Lindhurst High School in Olivehurst, California. There, he killed three students and one teacher and wounded nine others with a 12-gauge shotgun and sawed-off .22-caliber rifle, before surrendering to police. The day before his attack, Houston had called the principal at Lindhurst High, threatening to shoot up the pep rally that was to be held on May 1. The principal cancelled the rally. Houston came to the school at the end of the day and, upon entering the building, first shot his former Civics teacher, Robert Brens. He went on to kill 17-year-old Judy Davis, a student in Brens’ class. Houston then walked outside the classroom and shot and killed Jason Edward White. He pointed his gun at a female student, but a classmate pushed her aside and took the shotgun blast to his head. Houston next went to a classroom containing 25 to 30 students and commanded a student to recruit more hostages so that the room ended up housing more than 80 people. He kept those students hostage for more than eight hours before he surrendered to the police.

233

234

Human Rights Education

Houston told the police that he was angry that he had failed to graduate from high school and had recently lost his job. He said he targeted Robert Brens because he had failed his Civics class. Houston was found guilty of first-degree murder on September 21, 1994, and is housed at San Quentin State Prison awaiting execution. Lindhurst staff say that the incident is still what the school is known for, and they generally dislike media coming to the school to interview them after every high-profile school shooting. A film was made in 1997 that loosely follows the case. Detention: The Siege at Johnson High stars Freddy Prinze, Jr., as a student in the school and Rick Schroeder as the gunman who takes the school hostage after having flunked out. Some students at Lindhurst High School complained that the film makes it look like Robert Brens purposely failed Houston so that he would not graduate. They also complained that the assailant in the movie was named Jason, and that one of Houston’s victims was Jason White. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Detention: The Siege at Johnson High: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118969/ usercomments Mann, K. (2007, April 16). School shooting turns unwanted attention to Lindhurst. Appeal-Democrat. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://www.appeal -democrat.com/news/school-47104-shooting-eckardt.html The shootings and siege at Lindhurst High School as told by the survivors. (n.d.). Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://www.columbine-angels.com/lindhurst _story.htm

Human Rights Education Human rights education aims to teach students of all ages about universal human rights, the treaties that guarantee them, and the work still needed to ensure all people receive the rights they are guaranteed. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) calls human rights education an essential component of the right to education. It is most often included in high school or college social studies courses, although it can be integrated into a number of content areas. Many resources are available to educators seeking to include human rights topics in their courses, and to persons working in their communities to help ensure universal human rights. For example, a variety of websites offer curricula, news reports, training, research and evaluation, and networking on humans rights education. Most programs are based on the Universal Declaration of Human

Human Rights Education

Eleanor Roosevelt holds a poster of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an international agreement that she played an important role in crafting in 1948. (Corel)

Rights (UDHR), which was enacted by the United Nations in 1948. The UDHR includes 30 articles that articulate the human rights guaranteed to all, regardless of national origin. Human Rights Education Associates is an international nongovernmental organization (NGO) devoted to training professionals and activists and developing materials to teach others about human rights. It provides assistance in developing curricula and materials; training for professional groups; research and evaluation; a clearinghouse of education and training materials; and networking for human rights defenders and educators. This NGO’s website (www.hrea.org) links to the Portal for Human Rights, which offers resources for schools and educators, policymakers, and individuals seeking to incorporate human rights education into their curricula. It provides best practices and facilitates the sharing of resources. Another link allows visitors to access human rights courses, where interested persons can register to take a variety of distance learning courses on topics such as refugee law, the right to education, and gender and peace building. The report “Human Rights Education in the School Systems of Europe, Central Asia, and North America: A Compendium of Good Practice” is also linked to the site.

235

236

Human Rights Watch

Human rights defender Amnesty International also provides human rights education ideas, materials, and resources. This organization’s aim is to convey information about human rights as well as to inculcate values and attitudes that support respect for, promotion of, and defense of the human rights of all people. Through its website (www.amnestyusa.org/educate), this group provides online training on poverty and human rights, as well as an orientation to the work of Amnesty International and leadership training for new volunteers. A specific leadership program is available for college students, called Activate. In addition, Amnesty International has created film curriculum guides that can be used by classroom teachers, college professors, and other groups to facilitate dialogue about critical human rights issues. Guides cover the films Blood Diamond (about the global trade in conflict diamonds), The Kite Runner (about life in Afghanistan), War Dance (focusing on resilience during civil war in Uganda), and Hotel Rwanda (covering the Rwandan genocide and activists efforts to help). Amnesty International has also created curricula to go with the documentary Intended Consequences: Rwandan Children Born of Rape, and for the book Stolen Voices: Young People’s War Diaries from World War I to Iraq. Additional resources are available the Human Rights Resource Center through its website (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/). Laura L. Finley Further Reading Amnesty International Human Rights Education: http://www.amnestyusa.org/ educate/page.do?id=1102117 Human rights education: http://www.unesco.org/new/index.php?id=18683&L=0 Human Rights Education Association: http://www.hrea.org/index.php Human Rights Resource Center: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/

Human Rights Watch Human Rights Watch (HRW) is an independent organization dedicated to protecting and defending human rights across the globe. HRW aims to give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their actions. This organization conducts investigations and engages in advocacy that builds pressure on lawmakers and on the general public to support human rights. HRW has operated for more than 30 years and has received Charity Navigator’s highest rating of four stars. It was founded in 1978 as part of Helsinki Watch, an organization designed to support the citizens groups formed throughout the Soviet bloc to monitor government compliance with the 1975 Helsinki Accords.

Human Rights Watch

Its members began using the “naming and shaming” approach, publicly describing human rights abuses in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, as a way to foster change. In 1981, during the bloody civil wars in Central America, America’s Watch was created for the same purpose. In the 1980s, Asia Watch, Africa Watch, and Middle East Watch were added, until they were merged and took the name Human Rights Watch in 1988. In 1997, HRW shared the Nobel Peace Prize for its work as a founding member of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which was a leader in pushing forward the 2008 treaty banning cluster munitions. HRW publishes reports on human rights issues across the globe. Its website (www.hrw.org) offers a search feature so that interested persons can browse by region or topics. General topics include arms, business, children’s rights, counterterrorism, disability rights, health, international justice, economic, social and cultural rights, LGBT rights, migrants, press freedom, refugees, terrorism, torture, the United Nations, and women’s rights. In addition to regular updates related to each of these topics, HRW has published many lengthier reports and multimedia exposes. Each year, the organization authors the “State of the World’s Human Rights” report and sponsors a human rights film festival. In regard to schools and education, HRW authored an important piece documenting and critiquing the use of corporal punishment in the United States. Its news reports regularly offer scathing criticism of harsh punishments and abuse in other countries. Reports also document students’ inability to obtain education in countries such as Israel and Pakistan, where fighting prohibits them from attending school. In addition, HRW has documented sexual abuse in schools, terrorist attacks against schools, and discrimination against students. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Human Rights Watch: www.hrw.org

237

This page intentionally left blank

I In loco parentis In loco parentis is a legal doctrine describing a relationship similar to a parent’s relationship to a child. In general, in loco parentis refers to an individual’s or an organization’s assumption of the parental status for a child—that is, it is the legal doctrine by which an individual or organization assumes the rights, duties, and obligations of a parent. The most common usage of the in loco parentis doctrine relates to teachers and students. This principle has its foundation in English common law, where it governed the rights and obligations of tutors and private schools. The English common-law concept, in turn, shaped the rights and responsibilities of public school teachers. Under this understanding, the legal authority these individuals exercised over students was as broad as that of the students’ parents. The concept of in loco parentis has been a fundamental part of the educational system in the United States. Teachers and schools have assumed the legal authority accruing to parents, and exercised that legal authority over the children in their care. The courts have also defined some aspects of in loco parentis. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that conduct, either in class or out of class, that materially disrupts class and causes substantial disorder is not protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech. In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988), the Court ruled that the First Amendment rights of students in public schools are not equivalent to the First Amendment rights enjoyed by adults in other settings; that is, students’ First Amendment rights have to be viewed in the circumstances of a school setting. In New Jersey v. T. L. O. (1985), the Court upheld the search of lockers by school representatives, ruling that students are not afforded the same right to privacy in a school setting as they would be if they were at their homes. Parents have the right to search their children’s room and school administrators, acting in loco

239

240

Integrated Theories

parentis, have the same authority. In Ingraham v. Wright (1977), the Supreme Court ruled that disciplinary paddling of public school students was not cruel and unusual punishment as prohibited by the Eight Amendment. The First and Fourth Amendments also been interpreted as offering less protection for public school students. The Court ruled that public high schools could utilize random drug testing to safeguard their students in Vernonia School District v. Acton in 1995. In many cases, the courts have deferred to the school’s authority to make rules and to discipline students. In doing so, they have made several points very clear in applying the in loco parentis doctrine to schools. The first point is that under this principle, speech rules and other school rules are treated identically. The second point is the in loco parentis doctrine imposes almost no limits on the types of rules that a school can set while students are in school. The third point is schools and teachers have tremendous discretion in imposing punishment for violations of the rules, as established in Morse v. Frederick in 2007. Dennis Bulen Further Reading Blackstone, W. (1765). Commentaries on the laws of England. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). Ingraham v. Wright 430 U.S. 651 (1977). Morse v. Frederick 551 U.S. (2007). New Jersey v. T. L. O. 469 U.S. 325 (1985). Nolan, J. R., & Connelly, M. J. (1983). Black’s law dictionary, 5th ed. St. Paul, MN: West. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District 393 U.S. 503 (1969). Vernonia School District v. Acton 515 U.S. 646 (1995).

Integrated Theories In recent years, criminologists have begun to develop theories that address why and how juvenile delinquents may become adult criminal offenders. Referred to as integrated or developmental theories, this school of thought tends to focus on risk and protective factors and generally utilizes longitudinal studies to develop explanations for why some young people desist from offending and others do not. Most integrated theories also synthesize elements from various other theories.

Integrated Theories

One of the earliest studies of this type was conducted by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck of Harvard University. In the 1930s and 1940s, the Gluecks carried out a series of longitudinal studies with samples of known juvenile delinquents using interviews and analyzing secondary sources of data. Comparing 500 delinquents with 500 nondelinquents, the Gluecks found that the most significant factor related to persistent offending was early involvement. Additionally, the most important factor relevant to a youth’s likelihood of offending was the family, with children raised in large families, singleparent families, and those with limited funds or limited educational access being most at risk. Decades later, John Laub and Robert Sampson reanalyzed the Gluecks’ data. In a book called Criminologists suggest that a positive relationship Crime in the Making: Pathways and with family can break the cycle of juvenile delinquents evolving into adult offenders. Turning Points Through Life that was (Katseyephoto/Dreamstime.com) published in 1993, Sampson and Laub generally affirmed the Gluecks’ findings. They then added to the field by developing what they called age-graded theory, which proposes that there are two critical life-turning points that enable young delinquents to desist offending: career and marriage. Further, Sampson and Laub maintained that people with the most social capital, or positive community and individual connections, were least likely to be long-term offenders. The Cambridge Youth Study—longitudinal research involving 411 boys from London who were all born in 1953—utilized self-reports, interviews, and other methods to identify life-course offending. The study identified several factors that were most related to desistance. Specifically, individuals with nondeviant families, shy individuals, persons with fewer friends at age eight, and those with a positive relationship with their mothers were least likely to persist as offenders. Using longitudinal data, Rolf Loeber and associates developed a theory that identified three specific pathways from juvenile to adult crime: the authorityconflict pathway, the covert pathway, and the overt pathway. According to these

241

242

Integrated Theories

researchers, stubborn behavior among young children becomes defiance or disobedience as adults in the first pathway. In the second pathway, minor acts of deviance—lying and shoplifting, for instance—lead to more severe acts of property crime. The overt pathway is the one most associated with violent behavior. Bullying, for example, is seen as leading to other forms of physical altercations. Delinquent trajectories, a theory proposed by Terrie Moffitt, proposes that two types of offenders may be distinguished. Adolescent limited (AL) offenders generally engage in minor acts of deviance, but age out of such behavior when their peer group no longer is the most influential in their lives. Moffitt asserts that violence among youth in inner cities serves several important functions for this group, as it helps with impression management and the achievement of status (for young males, in particular), it helps young people acquire power, and it allows them to defy authority and command respect. Life-course persistent (LP) offenders persist in their criminal behavior due to a combination of family dysfunction and neurological problems. They often start with a small, sometimes undiagnosed, neuropsychological deficit such as a learning disability or behavioral disorder that goes unaddressed. Many LP offenders also persist because they fall into “snares” such as drug use or lack of education. In 1998, Samples and Aber identified the most critical developmental task related to violence prevention at each of four developmental stages. At each stage, numerous social variables affect a child’s successes. In early childhood (ages 2–5), the most essential developmental task is the development of self-regulation. The quality of caretaking influence a child’s ability to self-regulate, but research confirms that small classes in school also make a big difference in this regard. During middle childhood (ages 6–11), the critical developmental tasks are the development of normative beliefs about aggression and the development of interpersonal negotiation strategies. Young people are aided in developing these skills when they are involved in family-like settings in which the individual can be an active participant and receive the acceptance and attention he or she needs. In early adolescence (ages 12–14), the primary developmental task is the development of prosocial peer groups. Samples and Aber found that most school-based violence prevention programs are still focused on the earlier developmental need and, therefore, on changing attitudes, rather than assisting young people with developing peer groups. Many integrated or developmental theories focus on identifying risk and protective factors for young people. Risk factors are those individual, family, community, and other factors that make offending more likely, whereas protective factors are those factors that increase the likelihood of prosocial outcomes. Schools can either enhance risk factors or create climates that are protective. Research in the mid-1990s identified several characteristics of schools that help protect against crime and violence—namely, these schools help students develop

Integrated Theories

a sense of caring relationships, encourage involvement and experiential learning, hold students to high expectations, and assist with remedial or corrective programs when needed. Similarly, research on effective violence-prevention programs has identified several critical elements. Good programs must offer real challenges and targeted programs. That is, they must present information and scenarios relevant to the specific community. Given that power and endurance are highly valued by inner-city males, for example, good programs must incorporate ways to develop and demonstrate status and accomplishments. Development of group identity and organizational traditions is also essential, as is the opportunity to develop autonomy within a set of clear rules. Good programs feature family-like environments in which individuals are honored and valued, and the adults involved clearly show their commitment and personal interest. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Elliott, D., Hamburg, B., & Williams, K. (Eds.). (1998). Violence in American schools: A new perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. Finley, L. (Ed.). (2007). Encyclopedia of juvenile violence. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Loeber, R., Farrington, D., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Moffit, T., & Caspi, A. (1998). The development of male offending: Key findings from the Pittsburgh Youth Study. Studies in Crime and Crime Prevention, 3, 197–247. Moffit, T. (1993). “Life-course persistent” and “adolescent limited” antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701. Sampson, R., & Loeb, J. (1983). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sexton-Radek, K. (Ed.). (2005). Violence in schools: Issues, consequences, and expressions. Westport, CT: Praeger.

243

This page intentionally left blank

J Jeremy Pearl Jam’s popular song and video about a boy who shoots up his school after being picked on was said to have influenced some school shooters. The video features graphic depictions of the rampage. Barry Loukaitis, who shot three people at his school in Moses Lake, Washington, was said to have been a fan of the song. Jurors were shown the video. Some have dubbed the video one of the most controversial in history, and MTV actually banned it after the 1999 Columbine High School massacre. Members of Pearl Jam claimed they were certainly not promoting school shootings but instead were calling attention to what can happen when kids are bullied and isolated and when no one responds. Popular culture was often identified as the culprit in school shootings in the later 1990s. Listening to Jeremy, violent and misogynistic rap, the angst-ridden music lyrics of artist Marilyn Manson; playing violent video games; and watching hyperviolent movies such as Natural Born Killers was said to have influenced many of the shooters. Others pointed out, however, that this type of popular culture was widely consumed by many students who never went on to perpetrate acts of violence in their schools. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Coleman, L. (2004). The copycat effect: How the media and popular culture trigger the mayhem in tomorrow’s headlines. New York: Paraview. Egan, T. (1998). Where rampages begin: A special report. From adolescent angst to shooting up schools. New York Times. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http:// www.nytimes.com/1998/06/14/us/where-rampages-begin-special-report -adolescent-angst-shooting-up-schools.html?pagewanted=all Ramsland, K. (n.d.). School killers. Tru TV. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http:// www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/weird/kids1/index_1.htm

245

246

Journals Devoted to School Crime and Violence

Journals Devoted to School Crime and Violence A number of academic journals publish research and reviews about topics related to school and campus crime and violence. Journal of School Violence is a peer-reviewed academic journal that aims to publish the latest theory and research relevant to preventing and responding to violence in schools. It publishes original research on the causes and correlates of school crime and violence, analyses of school policy and relevant legislation, and descriptions and evaluations of interventions and prevention programs. Recent articles have focused on teachers’ perceptions of bullying, cyberbullying, evaluations of dating violence and sexual assault prevention programs, and bullying and teasing in middle schools. This journal serves as an important resource for educators, academics, and other professionals working with youth in school settings. International Journal on Violence and Schools is a peer-reviewed journal founded by the International Observatory of Violence in Schools in 2005. It publishes articles relevant to school and juvenile crime and violence around the globe, offering a comparative perspective. Recent issues have focused on school crime and violence in Spain, Luxembourg, and Africa. Journal of Peace Education publishes peer-reviewed articles describing theory, research, and practices in peace education. It is multidisciplinary and intercultural. Articles discuss such topics as conflict resolution, gender equality, human rights, cultural diversity, teacher professional development, and service learning. Many other academic journals occasionally feature articles relevant to school and campus crime and violence, including Adolescence, Contemporary Justice Review, Critical Criminology, Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Social Problems, Violence and Victims, and Youth and Society. Laura L. Finley Further Reading International Journal on Violence and Schools: http://www.ijvs.org/ Journal of Peace Education: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cjpe Journal of School Violence: http://web.me.com/michaelfurlong/JSV/Home.html

K Kent State National Guard Shootings Nationwide protests against U.S. involvement in military actions in Vietnam reached a climax on the campus of Kent State University on May 4, 1970, as members of the Ohio National Guards opened fire on student protesters, resulting in the death of four students and wounding of nine others. Kent State students Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer, and William Schroeder were killed during the shooting. Those injured included Joseph Lewis, Thomas Grace, John Cleary, Alan Canfora, Dean Kahler, Douglas Wrentmore, James Russell, Robert Stamps, and Donald Mackenzie. The actual shooting lasted only 13 seconds. However, this event marked the culmination of escalating tensions between Kent State students, the surrounding community of Kent, Ohio, and members of the Ohio National Guard, who were dispatched to the area to assist local authorities after a state of emergency was declared on May 1, 1970. The events of these four days in Kent had national ramifications, and today are viewed historically as a watershed event reflecting widespread sociocultural discontent during the Vietnam era. The events leading up to the Kent State shootings are located within the larger context of the national anti-war movement of the 1960s, which was initiated in protest of U.S. military operations across Southeast Asia, the federal military draft system, and post–World War II expansion of U.S. military presence around the globe. In the event that triggered the Kent State protests and subsequent shootings, President Richard Nixon ordered U.S. troops to invade Cambodia in April 1970, effectively expanding the Vietnam conflict. This action was viewed by many as a direct contradiction of Nixon’s 1968 campaign promise to deescalate and eventually conclude U.S. involvement in Vietnam. On April 30, 1970, before a live television audience, President Nixon advised the American public of his decision to invade Cambodia. The president explained the action as necessary to attack the

247

248

Kent State National Guard Shootings

National Guard soldiers move up a hill on the Kent State University campus just before firing on students staging a Vietnam War protest. (Bettmann/Corbis)

headquarters of the Viet Cong, which was then located across the Vietnamese– Cambodian border. Across the United States, reaction to Nixon’s speech was immediate, taking the form of anti-war protests and demonstrations on many college campuses. At Kent State, a rally was quickly organized by students for noon on Friday, May 1. That day, students gathered on the University Commons, located at the center of the Kent State campus, to proclaim dissatisfaction with the Nixon administration and the further escalation of an undeclared war. During this protest, the students buried a copy of the U.S. Constitution to symbolically memorialize their view that the Constitution had been “killed” along with tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers who lost their lives in what was described as a military police action. Another rally was scheduled for noon on Monday, May 4. Friday nights in Kent characteristically found students leaving campus and gathering in downtown bars and restaurants. The weekend of May 1–3, 1970, began in typical fashion, but soon mounting tensions between students and local police erupted in violent encounters. Although many specific details of the evening

Kent State National Guard Shootings

remain in doubt, certain actions on the part of both students and law enforcement have been clearly documented. A crowd of students gathered in the downtown area and an impromptu demonstration ensued. A bonfire was built in the street, bottles were thrown at police cars, and many buildings in the downtown area had windows broken out. The crowd grew larger as more students left the bars along “the strip” in downtown Kent and joined the demonstration. As the crowd grew, the demonstration moved to the center of town. Shouting anti-war slogans, the students directed their aggression toward businesses and institutions viewed as representing the sociopolitical establishment (e.g., law enforcement, banks and other financial institutions, utility companies). The crowd blocked traffic in the area for more than an hour, and Kent Mayor Leroy Sartrom called for assistance from county and surrounding municipal law enforcement agencies. Mayor Sartrom contacted Ohio Governor James Rhodes’ office asking for further assistance and declared a state of emergency. He ordered the immediate closing of all bars, which caused even more students to be turned out onto the streets of Kent. The police, led by Sartrom, then confronted the students and ordered them back to the Kent State campus. Law enforcement officials finally succeeded in forcing the crowd to return to the campus with the use of teargas and nightsticks. Before the night was over, representatives from the Ohio National Guard were on their way to Kent. The next day, Saturday, May 2, Sartrom met with other city officials and a representative of the Ohio National Guard. It was decided that Sartrom would make an official request to Governor Rhodes and that members of the Ohio National Guard would be dispatched to Kent. A dusk-to-dawn curfew was put in place, and students were restricted to the Kent Sate campus. Tension continued to mount as city officials assessed damages from the Friday night demonstration. Rumors continued to swirl that radical activists on the Kent State campus were planning further hostile acts. Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) programs on many college campuses had become prime targets for violence over the years during the Vietnam anti-war movement, and Kent officials feared the same on the campus of Kent State. On Saturday evening, students again gathered on the University Commons. By 10 o’clock, the Ohio National Guard had arrived to confront the more than 1,000 students at the demonstration. At this time, the ROTC building, adjacent to the Commons, was engulfed in flames and would eventually burn to the ground. Confrontations between students and Guardsmen continued throughout the night. Students cheered the burning of the ROTC building as Guardsmen attempted to disperse the crowd with teargas. In the mayhem, fire fighters were unable to reach the burning building, numerous students were arrested, and the campus was rapidly turning into a war-zone-like atmosphere. Sunday morning (May 3, 1970) dawned with the campus of Kent State University under full occupation by the Ohio National Guard. Although there were

249

250

Kent State National Guard Shootings

reports of instances between students and Guardsmen engaging in small pleasantries, the overall campus atmosphere was charged with hostility amid anxious tension. City and state officials took advantage of the quiet day to speak with media. Ohio Governor Rhodes, who was also campaigning for a U.S. Senate seat on a platform of “law and order,” came to Kent. During a news conference, he stated that the violence experienced that weekend in Kent was the handiwork of radical, highly organized revolutionists who were determined to “destroy higher education in Ohio.” Rhodes also called the campus protesters the “worst type of people in America” and warned that “whatever force necessary” would be used against them. During this press conference, Rhodes stated that he would seek a court order declaring a state of emergency. This step was never taken. Nevertheless, Rhodes’ statement provided the platform for city officials, along with University officials, to presume a state of martial law had been declared, so that the Ohio National Guard was in lawful control of the campus. Such martial control would prohibit further free assemblies on campus. On Sunday evening, tensions escalated once again, with students gathering on the Commons near the Victory Bell. Guard officials announced an immediate curfew and demanded that the crowd disperse. Around nine o’clock, the Ohio Riot Act was read to the students as helicopters dropped teargas into the crowd. Throughout the night, helicopters equipped with searchlights monitored student movements as teargas filtered throughout the campus. Students not honoring the new curfew were arrested. On the morning of Monday, May 4, students moved forward with plans to hold the previously announced anti-war rally, scheduled for noon on the Commons. University officials attempted to stop this demonstration by distributing 12,000 leaflets to students explaining that all rallies were banned as long as the Ohio National Guard was in control of the campus. In defiance of this order, students started to gather on the Commons as early as 11 A .M . By noon, an estimated 3,000 Kent State students filled the Commons, now mostly in protest of the Ohio National Guard occupation of their university. The landscape of the Kent State campus that morning is generally considered as follows: approximately 500 students gathered on the Commons near the Victory Bell, another 1,000 students gathered in support of the active demonstrators, 1,500 additional students gathered around the perimeter of the Commons, and across the Commons, at the burned-out ROTC building, approximately 100 Ohio National Guardsmen armed with M-1 rifles. The Guardsmen were under the command of General Robert Canterbury, who made the decision shortly before noon to order the students to disperse. A Kent State police officer made the announcement to the crowd using a bullhorn while standing by the Guard. The announcement had no effect on the crowd. The Kent

Kent State National Guard Shootings

State officer was then driven across the Commons, in a Jeep and under Guard escort, announcing the rally was illegal and demanding that the students leave immediately. The crowd grew openly angry and the military jeep retreated. General Canterbury ordered his men to lock and load their weapons, and teargas was fired into the crowd assembled closest to the Victory Bell. Guardsmen then began a march across the Commons to disperse the crowd. The crowd moved off the Commons and up the steep hill known as Blanket Hill and down the other side toward Prentice Hall. Prentice Hall is adjacent to the football practice field, which is surrounded by a fence. Soon, the Guardsmen following the students found themselves more or less trapped by the fence. Hostilities between students and Guard members (e.g., rock throwing, shouting, and name calling) continued to escalate. After approximately 10 minutes, the Guard began to retrace their forward movement back up Blanket Hill. As they reached the top, 28 Guardsmen turned and opened fire on the protestors. Some shot into the air, while others shot directly into the crowd of students: 61 to 67 shots were fired in 13 seconds. In the end, four Kent State students lay dead, with nine more students wounded. In the aftermath of the Kent State shootings, the university was immediately ordered closed by Kent State President Robert White and classes did not resume until the summer of 1970. Students and faculty members worked together to fulfill the semester class requirements for those enrolled in the university during the spring of 1970. The legal aftermath did not conclude until 1979, when an out-ofcourt settlement was reached between 28 defendants and the families of the dead and wounded. Part of this settlement included a letter of regret signed by the defendants in the case. The question remains today: Why did the Guardsmen fire live ammunition into the crowd of students? Two different and competing conclusions have been reached: (1) The Guardsmen fired in self-defense, and (2) the Guardsmen were not in immediate danger and, therefore, were unjustified in discharging their weapons. Numerous studies and analyses of the shootings have been conducted over the years, and many books, articles, and collections of personal accounts have been published. In retrospect, scholars of the Kent State tragedy have identified several main themes associated with this incident. First, Kent State has come to symbolize a great sociocultural divide within the United States throughout the time known as the Vietnam era. Second, the United States has not completely healed from the wounds created during this period in its history. Ideally, we can learn from the past, including painful incidents such as the Kent State shootings. As we seek better resolutions for conflict in the future, the lessons learned from Kent State can lead to better outcomes. In this case, the lives lost by four Kent State students will not have been in vain. Karen Lindsey

251

252

King, Lawrence

Further Reading Bills, S. (1988). Kent State/May 4: Echoes through a decade. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (n.d.). The shootings at Kent State. Retrieved from http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/kentstat.htm The Kent State May 4th Center, Kent, OH: http://www.may4.org/ Lewis, J., & Hensley, T. (1998, Summer). The May 4 shootings at Kent State University: The search for historical accuracy. Also published in revised form by the Ohio Council for Social Studies Review, 34(1), 9–21. The May 4th Collection: Kent State University Library: http://www .library.kent.edu/page/11247 The May 4th Collection: Oral History Project: Kent State University Library: http://speccoll.library.kent.edu/4may70/oralhistory/129.html Report of the President’s Commission of Campus Unrest. (1970). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Reprint Edition by Arno Press.

King, Lawrence On February 12, 2008, 15-year-old Lawrence “Larry” King was shot dead at E. O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard, California. Fellow student Brandon McInerney, who was 14 years old at the time, shot King twice. King did not die immediately, but rather was kept on life support for two days before dying from the head injuries he sustained. King was small, just 5 feet 1 inch tall. He also stood out because he would regularly dress in women’s clothing and accessories. He often wore make-up and stilettos to school. King was considered a troubled child. His biological mother was a drug user and his father had no presence in his life. He was suffering from signs of neglect when Greg and Dawn King adopted him at age two. King suffered from a speech impediment and was required to repeat first grade due to reading troubles. Although he was generally known as a gentle child, he got in trouble when he was young for shoplifting. At that time, he was diagnosed with reactive attachment disorder. This rare condition afflicts children who never form needed attachments with their parents or caregivers. King was also prescribed medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). By the time King entered third grade at Hathaway Elementary School, children had noticed his effeminate ways and began asking King if he was gay. King told them he was. Classmates bullied and harassed him. One girl started a “burn book”—a notebook of gossip and slander, as described in the film Mean Girls (2004)—that detailed a variety of allegations about King, many of them false.

King, Lawrence

At the end of the book, the girl wrote that she hated King and wished him dead. The Kings were alerted to this threat and decided to transfer Larry to another elementary school. King’s life seemed to improve when he entered E. O. Green Junior High School. He had a circle of friends (a group of girls) who liked him and did not judge him. He was still pushed around in gym class and in the locker room, however, and the situation worsened when he began showing up in women’s clothes. King also continued to act out. He vandalized a tractor with a razor blade, and at age 12 was put on probation and required to enter counseling. Larry began telling people that Greg King was abusing him. Although Greg denied that he ever hit Larry, King was removed from the home in November 2007 and placed in a group home and treatment center five miles away, in Camarillo. He continued to attend E. O. Green Junior High. Although things seemed to go well at first, King had some difficulties with other students at the school. King flaunted his cross-dressing in ways that made other students uncomfortable, but school officials knew they would face discrimination charges if they denied him the right to dress as he preferred. King told his mother he wanted a sex-change operation and told a teacher he wanted to be called Leticia. One of the school’s three assistant principals, Joy Epstein, who was also gay, tried to assist King. Her colleagues saw Epstein as encouraging King, however, and Greg King believes Epstein made the situation worse as she encouraged Larry to be “out.” On the day of February 12, however, King wore baggy pants, a sweater, and tennis shoes to school. Students noticed that he seemed nervous that day, and he claimed he had not slept well. He kept looking over his shoulder as he entered his first-period English class. Teacher Dawn Boldrin asked the students to take their belongings with them to a computer lab, where King found a seat in the middle of the room. McInerney took a seat next to King. McInerney pretended to read a history book but kept looking over at King. A half hour into the class, McInerney pulled out a handgun and fired a shot into King’s head. Boldrin screamed and asked McInerney what he was doing. McInerney fired a second shot, then threw the gun on the floor and walked out of the classroom. He was arrested within seven minutes, having walked out of the school building. King seemed to really like McInerney and he even told others they had dated but broken up. McInerney denies the two had any relationship. Near Valentine’s Day, King walked onto the basketball court where McInerney was playing and asked Brandon to be his valentine. McInerney’s friends teased him mercilessly about the relationship. Allegedly McInerney told one of King’s friends she should kiss him goodbye, because she would never see him again. She did not tell King about the threat, as she assumed that McInerney was kidding. On February 11, there were rumors about a fight between the two boys, but no one seems to have taken

253

254

King, Lawrence

them seriously. Greg King has admitted he believes his son’s behavior toward Brandon McInerney could be considered sexual harassment. McInerney had also been in trouble before. When he was six, his parents split up after his mother, Kendra, alleged that her husband, Bill, shot her in the arm. The home was filled with domestic violence, and Kendra had a restraining order against Bill. Bill claimed that Kendra was a drug addict. Brandon eventually came to live with his father. His father worked in a town 60 minutes away, so Brandon was alone a lot. He began to hang out with other kids who did not fit in, and he lost interest in school. The gay rights community has taken up King’s case as a way to draw attention to the harassment and discrimination faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) students in schools. Greg King resents the gay rights community for using his son as a “poster child.” The murder was labeled a hate crime by many in the general public, and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) devoted the National Day of Silence on April 25, 2008, to King. McInerney is being tried as an adult on first-degree-murder charges. If convicted, he could serve 53 years to life in prison. In late August 2010, a Ventura County Superior Court judge denied a change of venue for the trial. The judge did agree that publicity about the case jeopardized McInerney’s right to a fair trial and agreed to bring in jurors from Santa Barbara. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Cathcart, R. (2003, February 23). Boy’s killing, labeled a hate crime, stuns town. New York Times. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/ 02/23/us/23oxnard.html Cloud, J. (2008, February 18). Prosecuting the gay teen murder. Time. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1714214,00 .html Harris, C. (2008, February 21). Lawrence King—student who was murdered for being gay—to be honored with National Day of Silence. MTV. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1582039/20080221/ story.jhtml Judge in gay classmate murder trial to bring in jurors from Santa Barbara. (2010, August 24). KTLA News. Retrieved November 7, 2010, from http:// www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-brandon- mcinerney-king-trial,0,5454894 .story Setoodeh, R. (2008, July 19). Young, gay and murdered. Newsweek. Retrieved November 7, 2010, from http://www.newsweek.com/2008/07/18/young-gay -and-murdered.html

Kinkel, Kip

Kinkel, Kip On May 20, 1998, Kip Kinkel, a 15-year-old high school student, murdered his parents, Bill and Faith Kinkel, in their house. Then, the next day, he killed two students and injured 25 others in a school shooting at Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon. The murdered students were Ben Walker, age 16, and Mikael Nickolauson, age 17. Kinkel’s parents were found in their house the day after the murder. Also in the house was a confession written by Kinkel, explaining that voices in his head made him kill. He expressed regret for what he had done, but also said that he needed to kill people. The prosecutors argued that Kinkel was rational after killing his parents, as there was the next day’s newspaper on the table, a freshly used bowl, evidence that Kinkel had cleaned blood from the house, and proof that he had talked to his friends on the phone. Also found was a journal that confessed the youth’s thoughts of killing others and uncontrollable rage, and weapons including knives, chemicals, books on explosives, and “a sawed-off shotgun and a handgun.” Police also found a picture of the football team with one player’s head circled and the word “kill” next to it. Some believe that Kinkel’s early school years were a precursor to what happened later, as there were signs of frustration and trouble in school at an early age. During Kinkel’s first year in school, he and his family were living in Spain, and his teacher spoke only Spanish. His sister Kristin has said that this situation was very difficult for Kip, who then had to be held back a grade when the family returned to the United States. He became very frustrated when he had trouble in school. Kinkel was tested for a learning disability in second grade, but was not diagnosed until third grade when he was retested. In middle school, Kinkel and his friends started looking up how to make bombs on the Internet. His mother found out and became worried about the kind of friends he had. Kinkel also started shoplifting and bought a sawed-off shotgun from one of his friends in eighth grade, which his parents were unaware of. He was also arrested with a friend that year for throwing rocks from an overpass and hitting a car below. Kinkel was charged with this act and put under the control of the Eugene, Oregon, Department of Youth Services. After these incidents, Kip’s mother Faith put him in therapy with Dr. Jeffery Hicks, who later testified in court after the school shooting. Faith was concerned about Kip’s behavior, about his aggression, and about his relationship with his father. During this time, Kinkel also went to Skipworth Juvenile Facility as a result of the rock-throwing arrest. The psychologist there felt the boy was different from most juveniles who came there, in that he was truthful and remorseful about what he had done. Dr. Hicks felt Kinkel was improving over time with their therapy, although he realized his patient was still interested in bombs and was continually depressed.

255

256

Kinkel, Kip

Around the same time, Kinkel was suspended for two days in school when he kicked another boy in the head after the boy pushed him. Later, he was suspended again for three days after he threw a pencil at a student. Faith Kinkel and Dr. Hicks felt the school had over-reacted with its punishments. Dr. Hicks ended up putting Kip on Prozac, which seemed to help. That same month, Kip’s father bought a 9-mm gun for his son, with an agreement that Kip would not use the weapon without his father being there, and that Kip could not have full possession of it until turning 21 years old. Kip and his parents seemed to be getting along better at this time, and his father was making more of an effort to be with him. His ninth counseling session was his last, after all agreed he was doing well enough to stop going. Soon after that, Kinkel bought another gun from a friend without his parents’ knowledge, a .22-caliber pistol. The same year, he started high school at Thurston High. Kinkel seemed to be doing much better at school and in the rest of his life at this time. After just three months, he went off the Prozac after starting high school. His father bought him another gun, a semi-automatic rifle, with the same conditions as had applied to the other weapon. In speech class in school, Kip gave his speech on making a bomb, including detailed pictures on the process. Students later reported that this did not seem strange, as other students had discussed out-of-the-ordinary topics as well, including one on joining the Church of Satan. Soon after these events, the Pearl, Mississippi; West Paducah, Kentucky; and Jonesboro, Arkansas, school shootings all occurred. Kip’s friend commented that Kinkel had said the Jonesboro shooting was cool, after seeing TV clips of it. On May 20, 1998, Kinkel bought a semi-automatic pistol from a friend, which was stolen from another friend’s father. It is not known whether Kinkel was aware of the gun’s origin. The same day, the owner of the gun, Scott Keeney, called the school to tell officials there that the gun had been stolen and that he thought a student might have it. A detective was at the school on an unrelated matter, and talked to Kinkel about the gun. Kinkel confessed that he had it, and he and Korey Ewert, who had stolen the gun, were arrested and suspended from school. Kinkel went home with his father Bill that same day. According to people who talked to Bill on the phone that day, Bill was very upset and unsure of how to handle his son. Right after Bill talked to Scott Keeney at 3 P.M., Kip shot his father in the back of the head with his rifle. He put his father’s body in the bathroom and placed a sheet over it. At about 3:30 P.M., Kinkel’s English teacher, Mr. Rowan, called the house. Kinkel spoke to him and told him he had made a mistake, although he did not say what, and he said his father was not there. At about 4 P.M., his friend called and asked where his father was; Kinkel told his friend that his father had gone to a store. At about 4:30 P.M., students from Bill’s community college class called wondering why he was missing class. Kinkel told them he was not going to make it because of family issues. Right after that, he talked to his friends Tony McCown and Nick Hiaason in a conference call. Kinkel said in the call that

Kinkel, Kip

he had not known the gun was Mr. Keeney’s, that his father was at a bar, and that he was worried what others would think about what had happened at school that day. Tony and Nick said Kip kept saying he felt sick, that he was upset and angry, and he kept wondering when his mother would be home. When his mother did come home at about 6:30 P.M., Kip joined her in the garage. After telling her he loved her, he shot her six times in the head, face, and chest. Then he covered her with a sheet, as he had his father. On the next day (May 21, 1998,) even though he was suspended, Kinkel went to school. He brought with him three guns and a knife. He shot Ben Walker and Ryan Atteberry, and then shot his guns randomly in the cafeteria. Five students forced him to the ground after he had killed two students and injured 25. When police arrived, Kinkel told them he wanted to die. Kinkel then attacked Detective Al Warthen, the same detective who had arrested him the previous day, with the hunting knife he had strapped to his leg, shouting that he wanted them to kill him. When he calmed down, Kinkel confessed that he had killed his parents. The officers discovered Kinkel had two bullets taped to his chest, which he explained were meant to kill himself. Kinkel was indicted with four counts of aggravated murder, for the two students and his parents, and 26 counts of aggravated attempted murder, which included the police detective he assaulted after the school shooting. During his trial, 50 victims of the shooting and their relatives gave statements, all saying they wanted Kinkel to have the maximum punishment available. On November 9, 1999, after six days in court, Kinkel was sentenced to 111 years in prison without the possibility of parole. The judge explained that the Oregon State Constitution had changed in 1996 to place the safety of society over the ability for one person to change, which is how he ruled. Kinkel is the first juvenile in the state of Oregon to serve a life sentence. The defense tried to prove Kinkel was mentally ill, although they did not use an insanity defense, instead trying to obtain a plea bargain. More than one expert said Kinkel was mentally ill after he was in custody, diagnosing him with a learning disability, depression, low self-esteem, and early forms of schizophrenia. There was also a history of schizophrenia in Kinkel’s family. Dr. Hicks, the only one who had helped Kinkel before the murders, said the youth was not psychotic, but angry and depressed. Sharon Thiel Further Reading Fast, J. (2008). Ceremonial violence: A psychological explanation of school shootings. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press.

257

258

Kretschmer, Tim

Flowers, R., & Flowers, H. (2004). Murders in the United States. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland. McBride, R. (2007). After shooting, Bethel works to prevent bullying, peer abuse. Retrieved January 2, 2009, from www.ktuu.com. The killer at Thurston High. Frontline documentary. Related information can be found at www.pbs.org

Kretschmer, Tim On March 11, 2009, 17-year-old Tim Kretschmer entered his former high school in Winnenden. Germany, at approximately 9:30 A.M. Dressed in black combat gear, Kretschmer began firing, killing nine students and three teachers. He fled to a nearby clinic, where he killed one other person. He then took a hostage and drove to Wendlingen, a town approximately 25 miles away. The massacre ended in a shootout with police in front of a postal center. Two passersby were killed and two officers sustained serious injuries. At the end of the gun battle, Kretschmer was dead, although it was not initially clear whether he had been shot by police or had taken his own life. Chief of Police Erwin Hetger called the massacre a bloodbath, saying he had not seen anything worse in his 19 years working in the area. German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed outrage and proclaimed a day of mourning for all Germans. It was reported that during the attack, Kretschmer entered one specific classroom three times. Allegedly a student teacher threw herself in front of a student and was then killed. Students were terrified and confused. Some were told by police to leave the building and go out by the swimming pool. Students claimed the situation felt surreal, like a scene in a film, and that they had no idea how to react. Kretschmer came from an affluent family. His father was a wealthy businessman. He was also a gun enthusiast and a member of a Schu¨tzenvereine, or local shooting club. Membership includes training with air guns and then firearms. After a year, new members are allowed to apply for a weapons permit, which entitles them to buy and keep guns at home, although not to carry them in public. Approximately 20 million guns are held legally in Germany, mostly in citizens’ homes. Just a few weeks before his attack, Kretschmer’s father had taught him how to use a Beretta pistol at a club range. Reportedly, the family had 18 weapons in the house. The Die Zeit newspaper reported that one of the guns was not found when police searched the house.

Kretschmer, Tim

In school, Kretschmer earned average grades and did not really stand out. He had left the school in 2008 to begin an apprenticeship. Students reported that he had a group of friends and did not appear to be bullied or isolated. Although Germany has stricter gun laws than the United States, this and other incidents of school shootings prompted calls for even stiffer controls. At the time of Kretschmer’s attack, citizens seeking to have guns had to meet specific age criteria as well as demonstrate weapons expertise. Members of the shooting clubs argued these were isolated incidents and that no major overhaul in gun control laws was needed. Several school shootings have shocked Germany in recent years. In 2006, Sebastian Bosse, wearing a mask and explosives and brandishing rifles, opened fire at a school in the western town of Emsdetten, wounding at least 11 people before killing himself. In April 2002, Germany saw its worst school shooting when Robert Steinhauser killed 16 people before turning the gun on himself at a high school in the eastern city of Erfurt. Steinhauser was also a member of a shooting club, and his attack prompted similar calls for gun control. Germany has the second highest number of deaths from school shootings, behind only the United States. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Dougherty, C., (2009, March 11). Teenage gunman kills 15 at school in Germany. New York Times. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/ 03/12/world/europe/12germany.html Paterson, T. (2009, March 15). In Europe’s league of school shootings, Germany comes top. The Independent (UK). Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http:// www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/in-europes-league-of-school -shootings-germany-comes-top-1645387.html Pidd, H. (2009, March 11). Students killed in German school shooting. The Guardian (UK). Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/ world/2009/mar/11/germany-school-shooting

259

This page intentionally left blank

L Labeling Theories Labeling theories see crime and deviance as social constructions. Theorists stress that it is not the act per se that is problematic, but rather society’s negative reaction to it. Labeling theory asserts that individuals acquire certain stigmatizing labels through social interactions, particularly through institutions such as schools and the juvenile justice system. These labels may be internalized, thereby leading to perpetuation of the criminal or deviant activity. Labeling theory emerged in the 1950s and 1960s. Drawing on the work of sociologists Charles Horton Cooley and George Herbert Mead, early labeling theorists emphasized that crime and deviance, like most other human behavior, are socially constructed through interactions. These early theorists used a micro theoretical approach, emphasizing individual and small-group interactions, the use of social control in daily life, and the ways that individuals make sense of the labels they are assigned. Edwin Lemert posited that most individuals engage in minor acts of deviance at some point in their lives, what he called “primary deviance.” The application of a stigmatizing label at this time can beget additional labeling by other entities. Often, those persons who are assigned negative labels internalize the belief that they are indeed deviant, making their deviance become what sociologists call a master status. Lemert called this phenomenon “secondary deviance.” The transition between primary and secondary deviance is often facilitated through “degradation ceremonies,” or public rituals that are shaming and can have permanent impact—for example, court trials or expulsion from school. Given that individuals at this point find their opportunities for legitimate behavior are more limited, and that many have internalized the label, they may join others who have similar stigmas, creating a sort of deviant network. Howard Becker expanded this perspective to address persons who were in the position to assign labels—most notably, teachers, police officers, and social

261

262

Labeling Theories

workers. He called these people “moral entrepreneurs.” Later theorists followed Becker’s lead and placed greater emphasis on the larger social structures that create differential relationships of power and social control. Modern labeling theorists blend the symbolic interactionist perspective with a more critical view to address the ways that the attachment of labels mirrors larger social inequalities. Although all labels can have some effect, labeling theorists focus on those with the potential for long-term negative impact. As such, they assert that labels assigned by individuals with whom a young person has a close relationship and those given by persons who make important decisions about the youth’s future have the greatest potential to be damaging. In 1978, William Chambliss authored The Saints and the Roughnecks, which would become a classic in the field of criminology and a seminal work of labeling theory. It details his study of juvenile delinquency and what he observed while “hanging out” in the school and community. The Saints were a group of boys from “good” families, while the Roughnecks were a similarly sized group from working-class families. Chambliss noted that although the boys’ behavior was virtually the same, the Saints suffered far fewer consequences. Both groups regularly skipped school, cheated on exams, drank alcohol outside of school, and perpetrated acts of violence. Neither school officials nor police perceived the Saints as deviant, however; instead, they saw this group as good boys who committed occasional pranks. Chambliss determined that the bias against the working-class Roughnecks was significant. He noted, “The community responded to the Roughnecks as boys in trouble, and the boys agreed with that perception.” Many have invoked labeling theories to explain some of the school shooting incidents that started in the 1990s. Some have noted that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the shooters in the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, had been labeled as deviants and were bullied by their peers, although there is some evidence that bullying was not the cause of the incident. A common thread among all of these school shooters was that they were considered odd or strange and thus may have been subjected to negative labeling. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Macmillan. Chambliss, W. (1978) The Saints and the Roughnecks. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://www2.fiu.edu/~cohne/Theory%20S09/Ch%209%20-%20The% 20Saints%20and%20the%20Roughnecks.pdf Lemert, E. (1951). Social pathology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

La Salle University Sex Scandal and Cover-up

La Salle University Sex Scandal and Cover-up In April 2003, a female student and member of the women’s basketball team at La Salle University reported to the men’s team coach, Billy Hahn, and to her own coach, John Miller, that she had awoken in her bedroom to find male player Dzaflo Larkai sexually assaulting her. She claimed that the coaches discouraged her from telling anyone else about the incident and did not report it to campus authorities or to police. Because she was discouraged from reporting the rape, the woman waited another 14 months before finally telling authorities about the attack. The coaches have claimed that it was the player who asked them to keep the matter private. The university’s failure to alert the student body of a major criminal incident was a violation of the Clery Act. In 2004, a counselor who was working with La Salle University’s summer basketball camp reported to the coach that she had been sexually assaulted by La Salle superstar Gary Neale and another player, Michael Cleavers. The incident allegedly happened at a party. Coach Hahn spoke to the players and reported it to athletic director Tom Brennan. This time the university did inform the campus community, albeit four days later, and the students alleged to have been involved were suspended. When the victim from 2003 heard about the incident, she, too, came forward. Cleaves and Neal were tried the following fall and were acquitted on all eight counts. The prosecution argued that the men assaulted the woman while she was very drunk, having consumed at least eight shots of high-proof alcohol. Neal and Cleaves claimed the sex was consensual, and the defense maintained she had made up the charges because she was embarrassed. In the other case, the 19-year-old victim decided she did not want to go forward with a trial of Larkai, and the charges were subsequently dropped. Both coaches resigned when the charges were filed. The U.S Department of Education fined La Salle University for violating the Clery Act. It was the first time the Department had cited a college for failing to inform the student body about an acquaintance assault, and only the 15th time since the enactment of the Clery Act that a college was fined. The Act was passed after Lehigh University student Jeanne Clery was raped and murdered in 1986. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Finley, P., Finley, L., & Fountain, J. (2008). Sports scandals. Westport, CT: Praeger. La Salle faces sanctions for handling of alleged sexual assaults. (2006, December 20). Associated Press. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from LexisNexis Academic database.

263

264

Latin America and School Crime and Violence

La Salle University cited for mishandling two rape cases. (2006, December 26). Campus Safety Magazine. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://www .campussafetymagazine.com/News/?NewsID=790

Latin America and School Crime and Violence Latin America is a region of the Americas in which the Romance languages, largely derived from Latin, are spoken. Violence, or “violencia,” is a major social problem in this region. Every day, media attention focuses on gang and drugrelated violence in Latin America. International homicides, or those involving citizens of other countries, increased 50% from the early 1980s to the mid1990s, especially in Panama, Peru, and Colombia. In particular, drug-related violence in Mexico is deadly, with an estimated 13,600 people having been killed in such violence between the end of 2006 and September 2009. Globalization may cause crime and violence, in that persons seize new opportunities afforded by the interaction with other counties. A 2008 survey by Latinobarometro found citizens believed crime was the most significant problem in the region. Additionally, rates of poverty are very high in most of Latin America. Scholars have noted that when persons are unable to afford basic necessities, they may resort to violence to meet their needs. UNICEF has reported that 39% of youth living in Latin America and the Caribbean reside in poverty. Youth unemployment, unwanted pregnancies, and substance abuse are other major issues in these areas. The region also has a long history of conquest, domination, and civil wars, which set the social stage for additional violence by citizens. UNICEF has stated that 6 million children and adolescents suffer from abuse and neglect each year, and approximately 220 children younger than the age of 18 die every day from domestic violence. In some countries in Latin American, 12% of homicide victims are younger than the age of 12, while that age group perpetrates only 1% of all homicides. Violence is the leading cause of death among males aged 15 to 24 in the Caribbean and in some countries of Latin America. Adolescents are often recruited into hazardous work or forced labor. Many young people get involved in drug trafficking, especially in Mexico. Young girls face different barriers. Recent reports have documented that in Latin America and other regions, girls endure high rates of sexual harassment and assault while in school, often at the hands of educators. Girls may be offered good grades in exchange for sex acts and given poor grades if they refuse to submit.

Latin America and School Crime and Violence

A foreign-sponsored theater program teaches Colombian school children about leadership and the justice system. (Javier Said/USAID)

In Latin America, much remains to be done to adequately respond to violence and to begin prevention programs. In Colombia and Argentina, innovative programs involving conflict resolution have been implemented in a total of 236 schools. Young people are trained and led as mediators in these initiatives. In 2001, the government of Trinidad and Tobago announced that it planned to install metal detectors in schools in response to a surge in violence and the number of students caught carrying weapons. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has collaborated with a number of groups to better analyze and respond to violence in the region. The Inter-American Coalition for the Prevention of Violence is also working to tally and analyze various forms of violence as well as increase awareness and education. In June 2007, MTV premiered a UNICEF program on bullying and terror in schools that focused on Argentina and Mexico. Patrice Delevante

265

266

Le´pine, Marc

Further Reading Agren, D. (2010, April 7). Cash, status lure youths to drug trade in troubled parts of Mexico. The Catholic Review. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http:// www.catholicreview.org/subpages/storyworldnew-new.aspx?action=7948 Girls being “raped for grades.” (2008, February 10). Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID). Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http:// www.awid.org/Issues-and-Analysis/Library/Girls-being-raped-for-grades News note. (2007, June 26). MTV Latin America and UNICEF unite efforts to present a reality which many adolescents and young people live in Latin America. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/ media_40147.html UNICEF. (n.d.). Fast facts about adolescents and youth in Latin America and the Caribbean. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from www.unicef.org/media/files/ Fast_facts_EN.doc Violence prevention. (2008, February 12). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/ international.htm Youth gangs in Latin America. (2006). SAIS Review, 26(2), 133–146.

Le´pine, Marc In the late afternoon of December 6, 1989, a lone gunman shot and killed 14 women and wounded 14 more at l’E´cole Polytechnique, an engineering school in Montreal. The attacker was armed with a hunting knife and a Sturm Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle, which he legally owned. Born Gamil Gharbi (his father’s last name) in 1964, he changed his name to Marc Le´pine in 1982. He perpetrated the massacre at the age of 25. The attack was not random. Le´pine targeted women at l’E´cole Polytechnique, a school he wanted to attend. Ultimately, he was turned away not only from l’E´cole Polytechnique, but also from the Canadian Armed Forces. In his suicide note, he cited affirmative action policies that he believed gave women preferential treatment over men. Le´pine especially hated feminists and blamed them for his losing out on opportunities that he, as a man, felt he should have had, one of which was a seat in l’E´cole Polytechnique. “[T]he feminists always have a talent for enraging me,” he said in his suicide note, according to Toronto CityNews (2006), adding that “They want to retain the advantages of being women (e.g., cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventive leave) while trying to grab those of the men.” In the unfolding of the massacre, Le´pine told the men to leave the room and shot the remaining women, whom he had ordered to line up against a wall.

Le´pine, Marc

Much of the commentary after the massacre focused on whether Le´pine was an insane monster or a social barometer. Was he just a seriously deluded man who acted out his hatred toward women, or was the massacre an extreme expression of more common forms of sexism and misogyny? In other words, did Le´pine’s actions and the motivation behind them reflect an ugly characteristic of men and of society? Some might argue the former, that Le´pine was mentally ill and thus was different from most men. Le´pine himself predicted in his suicide note that the news media would brand him a “Mad Killer.” From this perspective, it might be said that most men were not “like him” and that Le´pine was a “monster” who acted on his own accord. A psychological perspective would focus on the abuse he experienced at the hands of his father, as reported by his mother Monique Le´pine in her 2008 book Aftermath. They might also draw attention to his appetite for war movies and violent computer games, as his mother described in an interview in MacLean’s magazine. As psychiatrist Susan Penfold (1990) pointed out, a person with particular mental illnesses can sometimes come to believe that outside agencies such as the devil or the CIA are conspiring against her or him. Penfold suggested that, in Le´pine’s case, the outside “agency” was feminists. The abuse that Le´pine endured at the hands of his father provides little explanation for his rampage. Many men have been abused as boys by their fathers, yet the overwhelming majority do not commit mass murder. However, consideration of Le´pine’s actions within the social and political climate provides a more compelling theory behind his actions. Le´pine’s hatred and decision to murder women was extraordinary and extreme, giving him a status that separated him from ordinary men. Yet, the massacre occurred during a backlash against feminism that was in high gear in the conservative 1980s. Among neoconservatives, feminists (and others such as gays and lesbians) were blamed for the perceived moral decay in society and for attacks on the nuclear family, thought to be the cornerstone of American civilization. In addition, feminist men point out that violence against women in various forms (e.g., beatings, rapes, murders) is perpetrated by “normal” men on a daily basis. Further, violence against women is routinely depicted in media such as TV programs, movies, and video games. Thus, for some, Le´pine’s rampage against women is merely an extreme version of the everyday sexism and misogyny to which boys and men need to subscribe to succeed in a maledominated world. In a biblical context, perhaps the story of Eve may be seen as an early example of men blaming the ills of society on women. In his own suicide note, Le´pine blamed feminism for all of his troubles, indicating that his rampage was a political act. The massacre was planned and executed to get even with women, especially those he disparaged as “feminists.” For Green (2005), the massacre cannot be reduced to the “anomalous act of a madman.” Rather, this author points out that such reductionism denies “the reality

267

268

Le´pine, Marc

that misogyny is a social problem, present in our political culture and perpetuated by our popular culture and our faith-based myths that denigrate women” (pp. 2–3). Prior to the Montreal massacre, Kaufman (1987) wrote that “violence is . . . the individual man acting out relations of sexual power; [and] . . . the violence of a society . . . being focused through an individual man onto an individual woman” (p. 1). Mass murderers in the modern age attempt to make political statements or magnify social tensions through their actions. For many feminists and allies, however, the massacre prompted discussion of the wider issue of violence against women. Green (2005) points out that the “normativeness of misogynist attitudes toward women makes the emergence of Le´pine . . . possible.” Similarly, Kaufman argues that Le´pine was not a “monster” but rather was “rational” in his response to the gains made by feminists for equality with men. In an open letter to Le´pine published in the Toronto Star, Kaufman (1990) asks him: By the way, did you hear the great line from one of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s latest films? Right before he blew away his wife he says, “Consider this a divorce.” Thought you’d like that one. These days there’s great stuff on TV and in the movies that I know you’d love to see; to make you realize that you weren’t alone. In his suicide note, Le´pine himself observed that, “Even though the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational and erudite person . . . ” For Brickman (1992), the Montreal massacre was thus “neither a surprising nor an isolated event” (p. 136). She explains that most “[female] abuse victims expected to be killed if they did not conform to the demands, expectations, and fantasies, explicit and implied of their [male] abuser” (p. 136). Le´pine learned from his abusive father that women were not equal with men. Further, the particular social script of masculinity to which Le´pine was exposed was one of violent masculinity. It is significant that the overwhelming majority of school shooters are boys and men, and likewise the perpetrators of violent crime. For profeminist theorists and activists, school shootings, and especially anti-feminist massacres, are extreme examples of everyday violent masculinity as “a cultural norm.” For feminists groups, the massacre galvanized many to speak out against violence against women that, unlike the sensation of the Montreal incident itself, tends not to capture media or public attention. In 1991, the Parliament of Canada established December 6 as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. The Day of Remembrance calls for a minute of silence to honor all women who have been

Le´pine, Marc

victims of violence at the hands of men. It was initiated as a response to the inescapable fact that women at l’E´ cole Polytechnique were targeted and brutally gunned down. Evidently, the data showing that many other women have been killed by their husbands and male partners were not sufficient to spark such a national spotlight on violence against women, even though “wives and romantic or sexual partners are the most common victims of murderous men” (Green, 2005). The Day of Remembrance also calls for men to educate themselves and one another about male-perpetrated violence against women. In 1991, a small group of pro-feminist men in Canada launched the first White Ribbon campaign to address men’s violence against women. According to the White Ribbon website, the campaign is now “the largest effort in the world of men working to end violence against women,” involving people in more than 55 countries. In addition to White Ribbon campaigns and the annual National Day of Remembrance, lobbying for tighter gun control laws ensued in the aftermath of the Montreal massacre. Such efforts resulted in the passing in 1995 of Bill C-68 (the Firearms Act), which established a gun registry in Canada. Critics have charged that this measure is ineffective and costs Canadians millions of dollars. Supporters have argued that such gun control policies are necessary to reduce the harm from, or even prevent, further shooting sprees. The debate continues in light of other school shootings that have occurred since the massacre, including another attack in Montreal—the Dawson College shooting in 2006 that resulted in one death and several injured. Public memorials to honor the victims of the Montreal massacre have been erected in several Canadian cities, including Montreal, Ottawa, Hamilton, and Vancouver. These sites are among the many others that memorialize women killed by men in Canada. A memorial ceremony also marks the event on the l’E´cole Polytechnique campus. Such memorials are controversial, however. Criticism of them tends to focus on the perception that Le´pine was a lone madman rather than evidence of hatred in wider society. Supporters advocate addressing violence against women as a social problem rather than as an individual pathology, in part through public memorials as a visible and continual reminder. Rosenberg (2006) argues that such memorials are a form of public pedagogy, which “is tied broadly to cultural practices and to any public, cultural endeavour to shape political visions of the past, present, and/or future” (p. 27). These debates continue. The Montreal massacre remains the worst case of mass killing in Canadian history. Gerald Walton

269

270

Le´pine, Marc

Further Reading Bradley, M. (2006). Report: Reframing the Montreal massacre: Strategies for feminist media activism. Canadian Journal of Communication, 31, 929–936. Brickman, J. (1992). Feminist lives, feminist deaths: The relationship of the Montreal massacre to dissociation, incest, and violence against women. Canadian Psychology, 33(2), 128–143. Burfoot, A., & Lord, S. (Eds.). (2006). Killing women: The visual culture of gender and violence. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Cultural Memory Group. (2006). Remembering women murdered by men: Memorials across Canada. Toronto, ON: Sumach. Eglin, P., & Hester, S. (2003). The Montreal massacre: A story of membership categorization analysis. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier Press. Fillion, K. (2008, Oct. 22). Maclean’s Interview: Monique Le´pine. MacLean’s. Retrieved December 11, 2008, from http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/ article.jsp?content=20081022_87668_87668 Green, J. (2005). Commemorating the Montreal massacre for the 15th time. Canadian Dimension, 39(1), 2–3. Jones, A. (Ed.). (2004). Gendercide and genocide. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Katz, J. (2006). The macho paradox: Why some men hurt women and how all men can help. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks. Katz, J., & Jhally, S. (1999, May 2). The national conversation in the wake of Littleton is missing the mark. Boston Globe, p. E1. Retrieved from http:// www.jacksonkatz.com/pub_missing.html Kaufman, M. (1987). The construction of masculinity and the triad of men’s violence. In M. Kaufman (Ed.), Beyond patriarchy: Essays by men on pleasure, power, and change (pp. 1–29). Toronto, ON: Oxford. Kaufman, M. (1990, December 6). A letter to Marc Le´pine. Toronto Star, p. A23. Kilbourne, J. (2000). Can’t buy my love: How advertising changes the way we think and feel. New York: Simon & Schuster. ´ Lepine, M., with Gagne, H. (2008). Aftermath. Toronto, ON: Penguin Group (Canada). Levy, B. (2008). Women and violence. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press. Leyton, E. (1986). Hunting humans: The rise of the modern multiple murderer. Toronto, ON: McLelland and Stewart. Malette, L., & Chalouh, M. (1991). The Montreal massacre. Charlottetown, PE: Gynergy. Penfold, S. (1990, December 8). Portrait of a misogynist. Vancouver Sun, p. C1. Ramsland, K. (2005). Inside the minds of mass murders: Why they kill. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Lo, Wayne

Rosenberg, S. (2006). Neither forgotten nor fully remembered: Tracing an ambivalent public memory on the tenth anniversary of the Montreal massacre. In A. Burfoot & S. Lord (Eds.), Killing women: The visual culture of gender and violence (pp. 21–45). Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Status of Women Canada. (2000). December 6, 2000: National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women information kit. Ottawa, ON: Author. Toronto CityNews. (2006). CityNews rewind: The Montreal massacre. Retrieved December 11, 2008, from http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_5897.aspx White Ribbon campaign: Men working to end men’s violence against women. (2008). Retrieved January 11, 2009, from http://www.whiteribbon.ca/ about_us/#2

Lo, Wayne On December 14, 1992, Wayne Lo killed one student and a professor at Simon’s Rock College of Bard in Massachusetts. Lo wounded four others before surrendering to police. He is now serving two life sentences without the possibility of parole. Wayne Lo was an A student and gifted violinist. He was known as being obedient and helpful, working at his family’s restaurant and studying late into the night. Educators said he genuinely seemed to like school. Friends and acquaintances commented on his excellent manners and his respect for others. His father, C. W, and his mother, Lin-Lin, emigrated to the United States from Taiwan in 1986. Life was far from perfect, however. Brian Skinner, an assistant manager at the family’s restaurant, said Wayne would often comment about how harsh his father was and how much he hated him. C. W. was a strict disciplinarian who would beat Wayne and his brothers for any indiscretion. During the second semester of Lo’s freshman year at Billings Central Catholic High School in Billings, Montana, his teachers noticed he seemed especially stressed. He was the only student of Asian origin in the school, which likely added to the stress he felt. Lo’s parents, like many Asians and Asian Americans, had tremendously high expectations for their son and placed a lot of pressure on him to achieve. Lo’s English teacher noticed his grades had slipped and that instead of the pride he formerly took in his work, Lo seemed to be proud of his sloppiness and mistakes. She and another teacher, Gary Gaudreau, discussed their concerns with the school counselor, but little was done. During the Easter break, Lo stole his mother’s car and went to Oregon to visit a girl there—behavior very out of character for him. He kept dropping hints that his parents should transfer him to a boarding school. Some experts have speculated Lo desired this arrangement so he could escape from the pressure at home. His parents gave in and sent him to Simon’s Rock in Massachusetts, a highly acclaimed, rigorous school.

271

272

Lo, Wayne

Wayne Lo started at Simon’s Rock in September 1991. He was 17 years old, and had also just earned his U.S. citizenship. He seemed to thrive at Simon’s Rock, exploring a variety of courses and joining the basketball team. Lo claimed, however, that he still felt like an outcast. He had a group of friends, all of whom also seemed to cling to outcast status and who were described as perpetually angry. He did, however, develop an interest in guns and weapons, When he returned home on a break, Lo showed his best friend his new brass knuckles and told another friend he needed a pistol for protection, In his second year at Simon’s Rock, Lo repeatedly asked others about obtaining weapons. A few days before the shooting, he used his mother’s credit card to order several 30 bullet clips, a folding plastic stock, and 200 pounds of copper-jacketed, steel-core bullets; he had the package delivered to him at the school. On December 13, Lo told a student he was planning to bring a gun to campus to shoot people. Later that evening, the same friend called Lo, who said he was busy copying the Book of Revelations into his notebook so everyone would think he was crazy. His friend assumed he was joking. A receptionist received Lo’s gun-related package and alerted various campus authorities. They were hesitant to invade Lo’s privacy or commit mail fraud by opening the package, however. They agreed to watch Lo while he opened the package, but somewhere there was a miscommunication and Lo opened everything except the ammunition in his room before officials got there. In the end, despite this strange behavior, Lo was allowed to keep his weapons and ammunition because he said it was a Christmas gift from his father. Lo did meet with the dean, but it was generally to discuss his transfer to college. The dean concluded that Lo was not a threat and did not have any weapons. That same night, an anonymous caller phoned several school officials, saying Lo had weapons and planned to target his residence director’s family. The college provost alerted the family, who went to stay elsewhere, but no other action was taken. The next morning, Lo traveled by taxi to Pittsfield, Massachusetts, where he purchased a semi-automatic weapon at Steve’s Sporting Goods Store. He began shooting on campus that evening, first wounding receptionist Teresa Beavers, then killing Spanish teacher Nacunan Saez. He proceeded to the library, where he killed student Galen Gibson and wounded another student. Lo then headed to a dormitory, where he shot and wounded two other students. His rifle had jammed and he dropped the weapon and entered the student union, where he called the police. He surrendered to them when they arrived at the scene. Throughout his trial, Lo was portrayed as a quiet and unassuming student, but also as a racist who was obsessed with violent music. Lo continues to say these allegations are not true, and that the racism allegation stems solely from a paper he wrote for class calling for the exile of people with AIDS. He claims that the paper was written because he was simply trying to earn a good grade. At the time of the shooting, Lo was wearing a shirt featuring the name of a hard-core band

Loukaitis, Barry

called “Sick of It All,” although he claims he loved all kinds of music. The band spoke out after the attack, denouncing Lo’s crime. Lo’s assault rocked the small, prestigious college and the Asian American community. Attention on the latter was renewed after Seung Hui Cho’s massacre at Virginia Tech. Prior to the attacks by Lo and Cho, University of Iowa exchange student Gang Lu had opened fire during a physics department meeting, killing five and leaving another person paralyzed before shooting himself in the head. Asian Americans denounced these shootings, asserting that theirs is not a violent culture. Many did, however, discuss the high pressure placed on Asian children and lack of forgiveness in the culture. Additionally, commentators noted that Asian cultures often dismiss mental illness and reject treatment for it. There was also concern about possible retaliatory attacks on Asian immigrants. In 1999, Greg Gibson, father of Galen Gibson, one of Lo’s victims, wrote Gone Boy: A Walkabout, his account of the shooting and its impact. This was the start of regular correspondence between Gibson and Lo. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Gibson, G. (1999). Gone boy: A walkabout. New York: Anchor. Glaberson, W. (2000, April 12). Man and his son’s slayer unite to ask why. New York Times. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://partners.nytimes.com/library/ national/041200rampage-killers.html Yang, J. (2007, April 19). Killer reflection. Salon. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2007/04/19/cho_shooting

Loukaitis, Barry Fourteen-year-old honor student Barry Loukaitis entered Frontier High School in Moses Lake, Washington, on February 2, 1996, armed with a high-powered hunting rifle and two pistols. He immediately headed to his algebra class, where he took the class hostage. Loukaitis killed two students, Manual Vela, Jr., and Arnie Fritz, as well as his algebra teacher, Leona Caires. He seriously wounded several other students before being overpowered by physical education teacher Jon Lane, who had talked his way into the room. Loukaitis had a disturbing home life. His parents were divorced, and his mother repeatedly told him that she planned to take his father and his father’s girlfriend hostage, tie them up, and commit suicide in front of them on Valentine’s Day. His parents reportedly fought a lot about his father’s drinking and womanizing behavior. Both parents had a history of depression. Loukaitis’s grandmother on his mother’s side had made at least one suicide attempt.

273

274

Loukaitis, Barry

Although he seemed to do well and enjoy elementary school, Loukaitis was picked on in middle school. One of his victims, Manuel Vela, Jr., had reportedly tormented Loukaitis, calling him a faggot, spitting on him, shoving him in the hallway, and kicking him until his legs were bruised all over. Allegedly, Loukaitis had a crush on Vela’s girlfriend. Other students teased him as well. He allegedly told classmates that he hated everyone and wanted to go on a shooting spree. Classmates said Loukaitis was an easy target because he was very serious, he was gangly looking, and he wore cowboy boots and strange clothes to school. On the day of the shooting, he was decked out as the man with no name from the film Fistful of Dollars. The case drew great attention to popular culture, as Loukaitis was reportedly obsessed with the film Natural Born Killers. He had seen it many times, and classmates said he could quote the entire film. He also loved the song and video Jeremy by Pearl Jam, which featured a young man shooting his classmates after enduring their abuse. Additionally, Loukaitis was a Stephen King fan, and particularly loved the horror author’s book Rage. Rage tells the story of a high school student who is bullied until he goes insane. He takes his class hostage and kills a teacher for revenge, much as Loukaitis did. He allegedly quoted a line from the book when he was holding the class hostage. King has expressed regret for authoring the novel. Frontier High School was closed temporarily after the shootings, and areas in the school where the incident occurred were renovated. The district has since implemented a dress code, increased security, and hired guards for schools. Many commentators have noted that Loukaitis’s attack was the first of a series of multiplevictim homicides in schools and was the impetus for a number of copycat shooters. Loukaitis was waived to adult criminal court after a hearing in which it was determined that he was competent and that the severity of the incident warranted more serious penalty. He pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, with the defense arguing that he lived in a fantasy world. The prosecution prevailed, showing that Loukaitis planned the attack with great detail. He was convicted and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Later, questions arose about the quality of his defense, given that his primary attorney, Guillermo Romero, was being investigated by the Washington State Bar Association for providing inadequate counsel for several clients. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Armstrong, K., Davis, F., & Mayo, J. (2004, April 4). For some, free counsel comes at a high cost. Seattle Times. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http:// seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/unequaldefense/stories/one/

Lu, Gang

Fast, J. (2009). Ceremonial violence: A psychological explanation of school shootings. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press. Finley, L. (Ed.). (2007). Encyclopedia of juvenile violence. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Langman, P. (2009). Why kids kill: Inside the minds of school shooters. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lu, Gang On November 1, 1991, 28-year-old Gang Lu, who had received his doctoral degree in physics during the previous spring, killed four faculty members and one student before seriously wounding another at the University of Iowa. Lu then committed suicide. Allegedly Lu was angry that he did not receive the prestigious D. C. Spriestershach Dissertation Prize, which was accompanied by a monetary award of $2,500 and would have increased the likelihood that Lu would have been hired. On the day of the shootings, Lu entered Van Allen Hall at the University of Iowa campus, armed with a .38-caliber revolver. Van Allen was home to the university’s physics and astronomy programs. Lu first shot and killed Christopher Goertz, Dwight Nicholson, Robert Smith, and Linhua Shan. Shan, also a physics student from China, had won the dissertation prize Lu coveted. Next, Lu left Van Allen Hall and entered the main administration building, Jessup Hall. He asked to see T. Anne Cleary, assistant vice president for academic affairs. He shot her, and she died the next day. Students have said they first thought these gunshots were firecrackers or pranks. Lu then shot a student employee, Miya Rodlofo-Sioson, in the mouth. She did not die but was left paralyzed from the neck down when the bullet went through her spinal cord. When he learned that police had arrived at the campus, Lu shot himself in the head. Lu clearly planned the attack for many months, purchasing his weapon around the same time he was awarded his doctoral degree. He purchased another gun during the summer and practiced shooting at targets. In the weeks prior to the murder, he emptied his bank account and sent the money to his sister in China, asking her to deposit it as quickly as possible. On the day of the attack, he wrote a letter describing his grievances. He made photocopies of this letter and mailed them to news media in Iowa as well as to the Los Angeles Times and New York Times newspapers. A copy of the letter was in his briefcase in a seminar room. Lu insisted that Goertz, Smith, and Nicholson—all professors—had favored Shan and snubbed him. He had complained to Cleary and felt she ignored him. Rodlofo-Sioson was the only random victim.

275

276

Lu, Gang

Lu’s assault occurred in the context of an economic recession that had hit universities hard, and from which physics graduates were not excepted. Lu desperately wanted a job but did not have one. In better times, the university might have kept him on as a teaching or research assistant, but in the recession there was room for only one—and that was Shan. There is no doubt that Lu was gifted. By junior high school, his skills in math and physics were clear, and he was selected to attend a special school. He won several awards and was admitted to Beijing University, China’s most prestigious college. In 1985, when he graduated, Lu was selected for a government-sponsored program that placed China’s most promising physics students at U.S. universities. Two years after he arrived in the United States, Lu showed some signs of being tired of physics. He inquired about switching his major to business, but was unable to do so because he was receiving a stipend from the physics department and was not granted one when he applied to the business department. His request to transfer to electrical and computer engineering was denied as well. Apparently Lu was also unlucky in love. He tried to date women but often ended up paying for sex rather than having a relationship. Coach Hayden Fry led the University of Iowa Hawkeyes football team in a solemn acknowledgment of the victims at their game the next day. The team stripped their helmets of all markings. In 2007, Chinese director Chen Shi-Zheng won the Alfred P. Sloan Prize at the Sundance Film Festival for his film Dark Matter, which told Gang Lu’s story. In 2009, a documentary about survivor Miya Rodolfo-Sioson was released called Miya of the Quiet Strength. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Mann, J. (1992, June 07). The physics of revenge. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://articles.latimes.com/1992-06-07/magazine/ tm-411_1_lu-gang Marriot, M. (1991, November 4). Iowa gunman was torn by academic challenge. New York Times. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/1991/ 11/04/us/iowa-gunman-was-torn-by-academic-challenge.html?sec=health Overbye, D. (2007, March 27). A tale of power and intrigue in the lab, based on real life. New York Times. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://www .nytimes.com/2007/03/27/science/27dark.html?_r=1&ei=5087%0A&em=&en =60699d2d8b90a79f&ex=1175227200&pagewanted=all

M Manson, Marilyn The music of shock-rocker Marilyn Manson (real name Brian Warner) is definitely controversial. This musician was banned from performing in South Carolina and has been offered $10,000 not to play in Salt Lake City. His stage name was derived from combining the names of actress Marilyn Monroe and serial killer Charles Manson. His work was described by some as playing a large role in several school shootings. Angry parents pointed to Manson’s violent and misogynistic lyrics after Michael Carneal’s 1997 shooting and the 1999 Columbine High School massacre. Fourteen-year-old Asa Coon, who wounded four people at his school in Cleveland, Ohio, in 2007, was also said to have been a fan. On May 18, 2009, a 15-year-old middle school student in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, fired a gun at a teacher, demanding that she say “Hail Marilyn Manson.” He then shot himself in the head and was in critical condition. Out of sensitivity Marilyn Manson poses in full costume during a live to the community, Manson canceled performance in Denver, Colorado, on June 22, the last five dates of a concert tour fol- 2001. (Shutterstock)

277

278

Mental Illness and School Crime and Violence

lowing the Columbine massacre, but at the same time denounced the media for unfairly scapegoating him. In his 2002 documentary Bowling for Columbine, film-maker Michael Moore interviews Manson. Manson suggests that music, film, and video games are being wrongly targeted and that politicians have created a “campaign of fear and consumption” intended to distract the public from other societal ills. He ends the interview by telling Moore that, given the chance to talk to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, he would not say anything. Instead, he said he would listen to them, as often no one listens to young people. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Baddely, G. (2008). Dissecting Marilyn Manson. New York: Plexus. Bowling for Columbine: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/quotes Chi, T. (2007). Studying Marilyn Manson: Groupies, school violence and bullying: Marketing revelations, Christianity, antichrists and psychiatrists. New York: BookSurge. Foster, M. (2009, May 18). Louisiana school shooting: Student shoots himself in the head after firing at teacher. Huffington Post. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http:// www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/18/louisiana-school-shooting_n_204704.html Manson, M. (1999). The long, hard road out of hell. New York: IT books. Sterngold, J. (1999, April 29). Terror in Littleton: The culture; Rock concerts are cancelled. New York Times. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com /1999/04/29/us/terror-in-littleton- the-culture-rock-concerts-are-cancelled.html

Mental Illness and School Crime and Violence Although speculation about the mental stability of school shooters has generally ensued after each major incident, there seems to be no clear answer regarding whether those who perpetrate crime and violence on school and campus property are prone to suffer from some type of mental illness. Many times perpetrators have not been officially diagnosed with a mental illness, although they may be suffering from an undiagnosed problem. In Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings, the authors of this book identify mental illness as one of the five main factors that result in rampage school shootings. Most attackers have shown some history of suicidal attempts or thoughts, or a history of feeling extreme depression or desperation. In its analysis of school shootings, the U.S. Secret Service found that in more than three-fourths of major attacks, the perpetrators were struggling to cope with a significant life change, such as a breakup with a girlfriend, some type of public humiliation, or a loss of status. Other research suggests that

Mental Illness and School Crime and Violence

prescription drugs, although intended to address an individual’s mental illness, may actually push some people to commit violence. After a shooting incident, pundits and the general public often point to what seem to be obvious signs of mental illness. In a recent publication, journalist Dave Cullen sought to debunk a number of myths about the Columbine massacre of April 1999. In his book titled Columbine, Cullen highlighted the role of mental illness, asserting that it was not pressure from bullying that prompted Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold to shoot 14 of their classmates. Instead, Cullen wrote, Klebold suffered from depression and was suicidal; Harris, he said, was a cold, calculating, homicidal psychopath. Harris was taking the antidepressant Luvox at the time of the massacre. Jeff Weise, who killed 10 people (including himself) and injured seven others at Red Lake High School on Red lake Indian Reservation in Montana, had spent time in a psychiatric facility the summer before the shooting and had been banned from Red Lake High School five weeks earlier due to his odd and threatening behavior. Weise had been taking the antidepressant Prozac. In cases where a diagnosis of mental illness was made, many have questioned why this information was not more widely distributed or why preventive measures were not taken by school or campus authorities. For instance, when Seung-Hui Cho killed 27 students, five professors, and then himself at Virginia Tech University, it became clear almost immediately that he suffered from some type of mental illness that had been previously identified by university officials. One of his former professors, who was at the time co-chair of the English Department, recalls being told by a colleague about Cho’s disturbing writing and odd behavior toward classmates. She began to tutor Cho privately, and her interaction with him reinforced the suspicion that he was dangerous. The professor reported her observations to both the university police and the campus counseling center, but neither offered Cho help because students could not be forced to receive counseling and he had not overtly threatened anyone or himself at the time. Shortly thereafter, Cho threatened to commit suicide and did receive some assistance from an off-campus counseling center, but he was released when he was considered no longer a threat. Later, Cho himself contacted the university’s counseling center. In an odd turn of events, the records of Cho’s visits to the counseling center were missing until July 2009, when they were found at the home of a former counseling center employee. It is unclear why the employee had the files, which showed Cho visited the center several times but never received a specific diagnosis. Because Cho was older than the age of 21, his records were considered private and not even his parents were alerted to the fact that he had sought help. Privacy laws generally make it difficult to share information—including mental health information—about students that might be prejudicial. Information can be

279

280

Mentoring

shared when students make threats to themselves or others, but in many cases no such overt threat was made prior to a school attack. The number of school or campus shooters who had been taking high-potency prescription drugs is disturbing and suggestive of a link between these agents and violence. The examples here include only some of the most infamous shooters. In 1988, Laurie Dann had been taking Anafranil and lithium when she killed one child and injured six in a Winnetka, Illinois, elementary school. Later that same year, 19-year-old James Wilson shot and killed two eight-year-old girls and wounded seven others at an elementary school in Greenwood, South Carolina. Wilson had been taking Xanax, Valium, and five other drugs. Kip Kinkel, a 15year-old youth in Springfield, Oregon, had been taking both Prozac and Ritalin when he murdered his parents and then killed two students and wounded 22 others at his high school in 1998. In 1989, 25-year-old Patrick Purdy killed five and wounded 30 at an elementary school in Stockton, California. He had been treated with thorazine and amitriptyline. Michael Carneal (age 14), Andrew Golden (age 11), and Mitchell Thompson (age 14) were all reportedly taking Ritalin when they killed students and teachers at their schools. Most recently, Duane Morrison, age 53, shot and killed a girl at Platte Canyon High School in Colorado in 2006; antidepressants were later found in his vehicle. It is less likely that there is an association between other forms of school and campus crime and mental illness. No data support the contention that perpetrators of property crime, dating violence, sexual assault, or drug-related crimes are more likely than nonperpetrators to suffer from mental illness. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Cullen, D. (2010). Columbine. New York: Twelve. Newman, K., Fox, C., Roth, W., & Mehta, J. (2005). Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings. New York: Basic. Vossekuil, B., Fein, R., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2002). The final report and findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. Jessup, MD: Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education.

Mentoring Since the surge in juvenile violence in the 1980s and the very visible school shootings of the 1990s, activists, juvenile justice advocates, educators, faith leaders, and policymakers have created a number of mentoring programs for at-risk youth.

Mentoring

Mentoring aims to provide youth with role models, educational programming, and empowerment activities that dissuade them from involvement in criminal or violent activity and encourage successful transition into adulthood. Such interactions can be conducted on a one-on-one basis or in small groups. The U.S. Department of Education funds some mentoring programs. In a school setting, typically teachers and staff identify academically and/or socially and emotionally at-risk youth for participation in the mentoring program. Volunteer mentors then generally meet with the students during the school day. Programs vary regarding the amount of time spent on academic and social activities. School-based programs tend to cost less than community-based mentoring programs, as they have lower overhead and other costs. School-based mentoring tends to be less intensive than community-based programs, however, due to constraints attributable to the school calendar. An average school-based program runs approximately five to six months and includes an average of six hours of activity per month. Often school-based programs rely on high school or college-aged mentors who may connect well socially to their mentees but can be less well equipped to make the needed impact. The most widely used type of mentoring program involves intergenerational and youth-based programs that offer leadership-development seminars as well as various other rites of passage for youth. These programs generally target the most marginalized youth, such as ex-offenders and gang members. Some notable examples of this type of mentoring program include the San Francisco Bay Area’s Omega Boys Club, Boston’s Ten Point Coalition, and the Ameri-I-Can organization in Lose Angeles. Identity-based mentoring focuses on youth who may be victimized by violence and crime because of their racial or ethnic background, gender identity, sex, sexual orientation, immigrant status, or other factors. These programs are intended to reduce discrimination and to raise the consciousness of youth such that they become empowered and self-confident. Many mentoring programs have been established to assist lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth, for example. LGBTQ youth are frequent targets of harassment and physical violence in schools. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has recognized this risk and developed a mentoring guide for working with sexual minority youth (available at http://www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/33_publication.pdf). Other well-regarded programs reaching LGBTQ youth include the North Carolina Lambda Youth Network and the Audre Lord Project in New York City. Mentoring programs have been established to assist the children of undocumented persons as well, given that they are often targeted in schools. Groups such as the Committee Against Anti-Asian Violence (CAAAV) in New York City, the ESPINO organization in California, and the Community Youth Organizing

281

282

Mentoring

Campaign in Philadelphia have all been created to address physical harassment and assault as well as the violence surrounding deportation, detainment, and unhealthy work conditions. At-risk girls have benefited tremendously from mentoring programs. Programs focused on girls aim to address such issues as dating violence, body image, eating disorders, bullying, self-esteem, and self-mutilation. The Ophelia Project is a wellknown girl’s mentoring program. Women of Tomorrow (WOT) is a school-based program in South Florida that combines a successful female role model from the community with a school-based coordinator to offer education and support for at-risk girls. WOT also has a scholarship program for girls seeking to attend college. Other mentoring programs involve large-scale organizing campaigns to improve the living environment of marginalized youth. An example of this type of mentoring is the Democracy Multiplied Zone (DMZ), which was developed in the 1990s by the Youth Force of the South Bronx. The DMZ focuses special attention on youth in a specific area of the South Bronx, offering them mentoring, developmental resources, and special attention. Some mentoring programs are established through diversion systems that assist youth who have been involved in the juvenile justice system. Missouri, for example, has established best practices in developing its extensive diversionary mentoring program. Evaluations of school-based mentoring programs have generally found them to be effective at reducing students’ misbehavior and increasing their performance. One study of a school-based mentoring program for at-risk middle school students found statistically significant reductions in office referrals and statistically significant improvements in attitudes toward school. The quality of mentorship matters, however. Positive mentors meet more consistently with mentees and report more relaxed meetings. Other studies have found that school-based mentoring programs produce short-term effects in regard to academic performance, school attendance, and behavior in school, but that the results were not sustained into the following school year. Many evaluations of school-based mentoring program have found positive effects on students’ self-esteem and ability to connect to their peers. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Converse, N., & Lignugaris-Kraft, B. (2009). Evaluation of a school-based mentoring program for at-risk middle school youth. Remedial and Special Education, 30(1), 33–46. Rappaport, C., Olsho, L., Hunt, D., Levin, M., Dyous, C., Klausner, M., et al. (2009, February). Impact evaluation of the U.S. Department of Education’s

Metal Detectors

Student Mentoring Program. Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved March 29, 2010, from http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid =NCEE20094047

Metal Detectors Although some urban districts have had metal detectors for decades, suburban schools had not really considered adding them until the mid- to late 1990s, after a spate of multiple-victim school shootings occurred. Scared parents and goodhearted educators often see metal detectors as a way to ensure that guns and other weapons do not make it into school buildings. Approximately 10% of all U.S schools now use metal detectors. In urban areas such as Chicago, the proportion of schools with metal detectors is much higher. Some schools use the doorframe-style detectors commonly found in courts and other sensitive public buildings, whereas others use the less expensive hand-held versions that are manned by school personnel or security guards. The United Kingdom has also considered wider use of metal detectors, in particular in areas in which knife fights are common. Authorities say youth ages 12 to 24 are responsible for three-fourths of all knife violence, and these weapons often make it onto school grounds. Critics contend that metal detectors are not really effective, are too costly, and prevent school administration from considering other, more useful, interventions. Proponents maintain that metal detector searches are not invasive and are commonly used in courtrooms and airports. The argument is that they can be a powerful deterrent to students considering bringing weapons to school. One concern related to their use is the cost of metal detectors. A walk-through detector costs a minimum of $5,000. For a building to be truly secure, all entrances would need to be equipped with a detector or otherwise inaccessible. Additionally, someone must be posted at the detector to further inspect persons who make it go off, so there might be an additional personnel-related cost. Hand-held detectors are far less expensive, costing approximately $100 each, but again must be staffed. Another problem is that many districts have installed detectors based on the fear generated by school shootings elsewhere, not on a particular need in their own community. Research has shown that, while metal detectors may be helpful in urban areas with long histories of students bringing weapons to school, when they are installed in districts that have not had any specific weapons-related problems, the result may be just the opposite. That is, the installation of metal detectors serves to tell students, staff, and parents that there must actually be a problem and ends up increasing fear levels. When people are fearful of school violence, they are more guarded, more likely to accuse others of deviant activity, less likely

283

284

Metal Detectors

Metal detectors screen students at the entrance of a Philadelphia school. (AP/Wide World Photos)

to find the educational climate conducive to learning, and—exactly opposite to the intended effect—may be more likely to bring weapons for self defense. To date, no case has reached the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of school-based metal detectors. Lower courts have, however, deemed metal detector searches to be administrative in nature; hence they are an exception to the probable cause warrant rule. Metal detector searches are blanket searches, in that students are subjected to them simply because they are students and not because there is any individualized suspicion that they have a weapon. Some civil libertarians see this logic as problematic. Additionally, critics contend that metal detectors are intrusive, in that once they indicate someone has contraband, that person must endure another, more personal screening. Unfortunately, sometimes officials charged with this work abuse their power, and there have been many instances in which young females allege they were groped while being patted down.

Metal Detectors

Another problem is that metal detectors sometimes do not work. One issue specific to hand-held detectors is that there is no way school officials can use the wand on every incoming student before the start of the school day. As a result, they often end up saying they are randomly searching students, but actually engage in a regular pattern, such as searching every third student. This pattern is easy to detect, and students interested in smuggling weapons into a school building can simply line up so that they will avoid the detector. Further, students can smuggle items through entrances or windows not staffed with detectors, or others who have passed through can be handed items from those who have not via windows or other openings. Several high-profile cases have illustrated these inadequacies in search policies. In some locations, the detectors are not even operational. Critics contend that schools are not and should not be considered the same as airports or courtrooms. First, students are required to attend school through compulsory education laws. Second, the time spent in a school is significantly greater than that spent in airports or courtrooms, for the most part. Third, schools have a different purpose than do these locations. Ideally, educators will develop quality relationships with students, rather than accusing them of wrongdoing, which is what a metal detector does. Instead of investing time, money, and resources on metal detectors, experts suggest that schools should focus on prevention programming and identifying struggling students so that they can stop weapons-related violence from occurring. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Beger, R. (2002). Expansion of police power in public schools and the vanishing rights of students. Social Justice, 29(102), 119–130. Dedman, B. (2006, October 3). Does every school need a metal detector? MSNBC. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15111439/ Diguilio, R. (2001). Educate, medicate, or litigate? What teachers, parents, and administrators must do about student behavior. New York: Corwin. Ferraracio, M. (1999). Metal detectors in the public schools: Fourth Amendment concerns. Journal of Law and Education, 28(2), 209–229. Finley, L., & Finley, P. (2004). Piss off! How drug testing and other privacy violations are alienating America’s youth. Monroe, ME: Common Courage. Morris, N. (2008, January 21). Teachers back metal detectors for schools. The Independent (UK). Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://www.independent .co.uk/news/education/education-news/teachers-back-metal-detectors-for-schools -771385.html

285

286

Middle East and School Crime and Violence

Middle East and School Crime and Violence Assessing school violence in the Middle East is difficult because there are so many potential compounding and contributing factors. First, defining what makes up the region known as the Middle East is a rather convoluted question. For the purpose of this discussion, the Middle East refers to any of several countries in southwest Asia, including the Persian Gulf states, northern Africa, and the nations of Pakistan and Afghanistan. This region has experienced near-constant political turmoil throughout the 20th century and now into the 21st century. Furthermore, it is a region of great cultural, religious, and linguistic diversity, all of which can contribute to division and violent conflict. Societies within this region are at various levels of economic development and modernization. With this diversity in mind, it is difficult to make any sweeping generalizations about the condition of school violence in the region. The aim of this article is to highlight incidents of school violence from the region, discuss some of the underlying factors, and address measures being taken to mitigate the incidence of school violence in the Middle East. Violence in the Middle East can be broken down into three key categories: violence perpetrated by teachers, violence perpetrated by students, and gender-based violence. Violence perpetrated by teachers generally takes the form of corporal punishment, which is widely employed as a form of school discipline and includes physical violence, sexual violence, verbal assault, and public humiliation. In a study conducted by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in Jordan that was released in 2007, researchers found that more than half of all students in Jordan are subjected to some form of physical abuse or aggressive behavior as a form of punishment in school. This violence is not restricted to the classroom, but is commonplace within homes as well. Statistics show that more than two-thirds of Jordanian students experience verbal abuse in the home, while more than half experience physical abuse in the classroom. The social and political climate in Jordan is currently strained due to the ongoing conflict occurring within the Gaza strip. Many of the abusive disciplinary measures in Jordanian schools are directed toward children of refugees—children who witness violence around them every day in povertystricken refugee camps. Teachers attribute their application of harsh disciplinary methods to a need to create order in an already strained circumstance. Countering this argument, advocates for change in school violence suggest that the strained social and political circumstances make it all the more important that children have a place to learn where they feel safe. In November 2008, the United Nations Agency for Palestinian Refugees led an initiative to reduce conflict and violent incidents within schools. This initiative is being implemented in UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) schools throughout Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and Gaza. Students

Middle East and School Crime and Violence

have also been taking matters into their own hands. In Jordan, a group of students organized on Universal Children’s Day (November 19) and called for a change to the statute that accorded leniency to perpetrators of child abuse. The violence being perpetrated within classrooms is not entirely one sided, however. Incidents of student violence against teachers are on the rise in Saudi Arabia, despite the severe standards of corporal punishment for students. One teacher was photographed and recorded being beaten until black and blue and falling unconscious at the hands of a student whose grade the teacher refused to change. In another incident, a teacher was held at gunpoint while his car was torched after he reported on students who had been joyriding outside the school building. Teachers in Saudi Arabia are naturally alarmed by these incidents, and are imploring the government to enforce a stricter penal system. Some believe, however, that the existing model of physical violence and severe punishments inflicted by teachers lies at the heart of the student violence. Muhammad Rajab, a 16-yearold student from a private high school in Jeddah, has noted that many students come from a privileged background and “they generally don’t listen to teachers because of this. They don’t like being told what to do.” Said Rajab, “I remember a pupil who beat up a teacher because he told him not to cheat in exams.” Rajab went on to say that he believed some of the responsibility lay with teachers and their behavior in the classroom: “Our supervisors would sometimes take off their Igals [the black ring worn by Saudi men over their headscarves] and beat pupils who don’t go to class.” Another student interviewed said of the violence against teachers, “To save face and to prove that they are stronger, pupils naturally react aggressively. What goes around comes around.” School violence against women is particularly worrisome in the Middle East. This violence, which is perpetrated both by fellow students and by teachers, is largely verbal, moral, and sexual in nature. Assertive behavior that is met with severe punishment when perpetrated by boys is even less tolerated when it is perpetrated by girls. In Saudi Arabia, one girl was sentenced to 90 lashes and two months in prison after she hit her teacher on the head with a cup. The courts insisted that the lashes be administered in the classroom in the presence of the girl’s peers as a deterrent to bad behavior. While the global community has condemned the country’s use of corporal punishment in its schools, the Saudi government insists that such measures are widely approved within the country and help to prevent crime. While efforts to train teachers and students in practices of gender equity and nonviolent conflict resolution have been proposed by organizations such as UNICEF, much progress remains to be made. Greg Mortenson, an American humanitarian and author of Three Cups of Tea, has founded an organization called the Central Asia Institute that has built more than 130 schools throughout Pakistan

287

288

Middle East and School Crime and Violence

and Afghanistan. Mortenson has made one of his primary objectives the education of girls in particular, and is currently educating 58,000 students through Central Asia Institute schools. One initiative, spearheaded by UNICEF, has been working to address all three forms of school violence discussed in this article. “Stopping Violence, Starting in Schools” was the title given to a live chat forum in which students from Tunisia, Yemen, Palestine, and Morocco were asked to respond to a series of questions regarding their experiences with school violence and their recommendations for change. In the ensuing dialogue, students talked about what they saw as underlying the violence in their schools and what they thought would be the most effective means for change. A summary of the students’ views follows:

Causes Underlying Violence in Middle Eastern Schools • The style of corporal punishment, involving physical violence and public humiliation of student in front of peers, that is employed by teachers • Lack of interest or ability on the part of the school administration to resolve the issues of school violence, as they seem to side with school personnel regardless of the circumstance • Failure to enforce existing laws or rules in place regarding violence in school • Lack of dialogue in schools about violence because the school has a tendency to downplay the existing violence • Low socioeconomic status and family circumstances of students • Violent environmental conditions, such as the presence of war • According to the female students, being female, as they felt they were exposed to more violence than male students • In schools where parents pay tuition, school personnel are more cautious in their use of violence against students

Student-Suggested Solutions to Violence in Middle Eastern Schools • Punishment should not be employed as a form of discipline in schools, and there should be repercussions for teachers who employ violence in the classroom. • The formation of participatory committees including parents, students and teachers would enable them to try to resolve the issue of violence in schools.

Middle Schools and Crime and Violence

• Having trained teachers and psychologists to respond to conflicts and violence would be helpful. • The formation of extracurricular clubs in sports or the arts would give students creative outlets as an alternative to violence. • School structures should not be placed next to rivers and woods where gangs could be hiding. • Rules regarding weapons, violence, and gang activity at the school must be consistently enforced. • In countries with child parliaments, school violence could be addressed as an issue at a high political level. Finally, students concluded that if children’s rights are not acknowledged in the Middle East, then the conversation about violence in schools is useless. This conference, which was hosted by UNICEF, was intended as a precursor to an International Colloquium titled “Towards a School of Dialogue and Respect” that was held in Tunis. Based on its results, it would seem that students, parents, teachers, and administrators will need to engage in open dialogue about the sources of school violence in the Middle East before transformation in school violence can be accomplished. Megan Barnes Further Reading Clinton, C. (2002). A stone in my hand. Cambridge, MA: Candlewick Press IRIN. (2008). Middle East: UNRWA moves to combat violence in its schools. Retrieved February 7, 2010, from http://www.IRINnews.org Mortenson, G., & Relin, D. (2006). Three cups of tea. London: Penguin Books. Reuters. (2010). Teenager faces lashing for school violence. Retrieved February 7, 2010, from http://www.iol.co.za/ Shaikh, H. (2007). Violence in Saudi Arabia schools on the rise. Retrieved February 7, 2010, from http://www.khaleejtimes.com. UNICEF. (2005). Young people speak out against violence in schools. Retrieved February 7, 2010, from http://www.unicef.org/voy

Middle Schools and Crime and Violence Serious violent victimization rates were lower at school than away from school from 1992 through 2004. An online edition is available with up-to-date information. During that same period, the violent crime rate at school dropped by 54%

289

290

Middle Schools and Crime and Violence

and thefts at school declined by 65%. During this span, middle school students (those from 12 to 14 years old) were more likely than older students (15 to 18 years old) to be crime victims at school. Additionally, while overall gang offenses in public schools are down, studies show gang offenses rising in middle schools. Some police officials are concerned that middle schools are emerging as epicenters of gang activity and recruitment, with more and more students are forging their first gang ties at ever younger ages. In interviews with 50 current and former gang members and their associates, researchers found that 75% of gang members joined these organizations by age 14 and 25% joined by age 12. While overall crime statistics and school-based crimes have decreased in recent years, specific concerns have arisen regarding crimes, violence, and bullying on middle school campuses. As a result of zero-tolerance school violence policies put into effect as a response to the incident at Columbine High School and out of concern for school safety, middle school campuses often employ harsh disciplinary consequences for behavioral infractions. One school in Chicago is reported to have had 25 of its students, aged 11 to 14, arrested for participating in a food fight in the school cafeteria. A Madison, Wisconsin, sixth-grader was suspended and told he would be expelled for a year when he brought a steak knife to school to dissect an onion for a class science project. An 11-year-old girl was suspended for drawing stick figures of her teachers with arrows through their heads. A 10year-old Florida girl was suspended after she pointed an oak leaf she was pretending was a gun at classmate. Thirty states have also adopted laws to address bullying prevention in recent years. For example, one New Jersey program sends middle and high school students who demonstrate at-risk bullying behaviors to a five-day out-of-school educational and rehabilitation program. Critics of the zero-tolerance policies agree that children involved in high-risk behaviors should face some discipline or punishment, but argue that subjecting children to mandatory suspensions for these minor types of infractions does more harm than good. Some recent data indicate racial disparities among those students who receive harsh discipline. The Ohio Department of Education found that, in 297 districts that divided their discipline data by race, 252 districts disciplined blacks more frequently than whites. Those figures reflect nationwide trends. Most critics of zero-tolerance would prefer more school autonomy in choosing appropriate consequences for offenses committed by students. A wide array of promising interventions and strategies exist for addressing problem behaviors, including positive behavioral interventions and supports. Some use graduated sanctions, promote positive overall school environments, and provide wraparound services for students with more-extensive needs. Some focus on individual classroom rules and interventions, because bullying often takes place inside classrooms and within groups of students who know one another. Some recommend practices

Monitoring the Future Survey

that push students to examine their actions and make amends to those whom they hurt. Doreen Maller Further Reading NSSC review of school safety research. (2006, December). Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www.schoolsafety.us/pubfiles/school_crime_and_violence _statistics.pdf Schabner, D. (2008, May 8). Schools suspend for doodles and dye jobs. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91666&page=1 Stop Bullying Now. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www .stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/kids/default.aspx Wald, J., & Lisa, T. (2010, February 22). Taking school safety too far. Retrieved February 28, 2010, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/02/24/22 wald.h29.html?tkn=UMPFYKxBS5qhfDNuWUX98T7cQIGVJQlfEw6K&cmp =clp-edweek Zapotosky, M. (2009, October 27). In N. Va., mixed news about gang activity. The Washington Post. Retrieved February 28, 2010, from http://www .washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603038 .html

Monitoring the Future Survey The Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey is administered every spring to approximately 50,000 total students randomly selected in grades 8, 10, and 12. Surveys are administered annually at approximately 420 public and private middle schools and high schools that are representative of the U.S. student population at each of the three grade levels. As many as 350 students from each school can be selected to fill out survey questionnaires, whenever possible, in a classroom and during a regular class period. At schools with fewer than that number of students, all students are invited to participate. In schools with more than 350 students, a subsample is selected. The survey is funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse at the National Institute of Health (NIH) and administered by the Survey Research Center in the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. The MTF survey was first administered in 1975 to 12th graders, when it was known as the National High School Senior Survey. Since 1991, the survey has included respondents in the 8th and 10th grades. A random sample of each graduating class is determined, and every two years a questionnaire is mailed to the

291

292

Moral Panics and Campus Crime and Violence

home address of each student selected, along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope for return of the survey and nominal monetary compensation for its completion. Survey and follow-up questionnaire respondents are asked about legal and illicit drugs, crime, social and ethical views, environmental issues, the changing roles of women in society, and social institutions. The same set of questions is asked of each cohort over a period of years, when enables researchers to compare the answers to individual questions and determine if, and how, the behaviors and attitudes of young people in the United States are changing. According to the Survey Research Center, the study’s design allows researchers to examine four kinds of changes: (1) changes connected to environment (e.g., middle school, high school, college, workplace) or transitions in life (e.g., moving out of the parent’s home, marriage, parenthood); (2) period effects, or changes across all the age groups surveyed during a particular year; (3) age effects, or developmental changes that show up consistently in survey panel after survey panel; and (4) cohort effects, or consistent differences observed between class cohorts over time. Government officials, policymakers, health officials, and researchers use the results and general trends of the MTF survey to monitor the behaviors and attitudes of adolescents and young adults throughout the United States. Richard Mora Further Reading National Institute of Health, National Institute of Drug Abuse. (December 15, 2009). Monitoring the Future survey. Retrieved from http://www .drugabuse.gov/drugpages/MTF.HTML Survey Research Center in the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan. (January 22, 2010). Monitoring the future. Retrieved from http:// monitoringthefuture.org/

Moral Panics and Campus Crime and Violence Reports often indicate fears that violence in society is on the rise, especially on high school and college campuses throughout the United States. While there might be some validity in these concerns, they are often the result of what sociologists, psychologists, and criminologists term a moral panic. A moral panic can be defined as the occurrence of widespread fear about a perceived threat to societal values and interests. It is important to highlight that the threat is perceived, and might have little bearing in reality. Moral panics can arise out of new

Moral Panics and Campus Crime and Violence

developments, such as concern over cybercrime due to rapidly changing Internet technologies, or can be based on problems that have existed prior to the panic and will likely persist long after the panic fades away, such as youth violence and illicit drug use. Moral panics have arisen throughout history. In the 17th-century America, for example, Puritans became hysterical about the presence of witches, giving rise to widespread witch-hunts. At the time, many women (and a few men) were arrested and killed because they were believed to be witches. From a modernday vantage point, this panic seems absurd, but it was a real concern at the time. Even today, some religious denominations are concerned by witchcraft and perceived occult activities. In the 18th century through to contemporary times, the older and middle-aged members of most generations have voiced serious concerns about the moral decay of the youth of their time, especially in relation to adolescent violence. Specific concerns often go away over time or are indoctrinated into legislation to prohibit the activity, which usually has little success in curbing the issue. Violence on campuses throughout North America is an important social concern. It is not a new issue, however, nor is it an issue that can be solely linked to crazed students on sprees of violence. For instance, in 1966, Charles Whitman killed 14 people and injured 32 more at the University of Texas. In 1976, a custodian at California State University in Fullerton shot nine people in the school library, killing seven of them. In 1989, Marc Le´pine killed 14 people before killing himself at a university in Montreal in Canada. In 1991, a graduate student named Gang Lu at the University of Iowa killed five people. In 2007, Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people at Virginia Tech. While the number of victims in the Virginia Tech shootings is alarming, so is the number of victims of shootings on college campuses over the last 40 years. These examples reveal that serious violence on college campus is not a new phenomenon in the United States and is not perpetrated strictly by students. Likewise, in the 1970s, many students were killed on U.S. college campuses during important political protests; their deaths occurred at the hands of law enforcement officials. At Kent State University in 1970, four protestors against the American invasion of Cambodia were killed and nine others were injured by the National Guard. Also in 1970, two students were killed and 12 others injured when police began firing on student protestors at Jackson State College. In general, school shootings on college campuses in the United States are infrequent. When they do occur, they garner major media attention, inciting new fears about the moral degeneration of America’s youth. While rooted in actual events, the subsequent fears that no campus in the United States is safe probably do not warrant the increased security measures and precautions taken in the wake of such incidents. After each school shooting, moral panics develop that youth are out of control, violence is rising, violent crime is becoming more commonplace, and

293

294

Moral Panics and High School Crime and Violence

students are no longer safe at their schools. While some of these concerns might be legitimate, they are not recent phenomena. Various theories have been proposed to explain how and why moral panics develop. Some suggest that humans have an innate sense of panic, which serves as a survival instinct. Others contend that the creation of a culture of fear is in the interest of the capitalist elite or the ruling class, as it leads people to become mindless consumers of products and services that make more money for the already wealthy. Similarly, many individuals and groups are reliant on the construction of crime for their livelihood, such as police officers, government officials, researchers, and members of the media. When panics arise, individuals working in the area of the panic see a rise in the amount of funding that they are provided. It can also be argued that moral panics are developed by moral entrepreneurs, or people who have a specific interest in pushing a particular social issue. For example, groups whose operation centers on the promotion of gun control laws in the United States have a vested interested in believing and revealing that crimes on campus that are perpetrated by guns are on the rise. Others suggest that the rise and spread of new media are contributing to the development of moral panics, as new images of violence on campus are being instantaneously broadcast on television, radio, and the Internet, reaching more people, faster than ever before. Curtis Fogel Further Reading Cohen, S. (2002). Folk devils and moral panics. London: Routledge. Critcher, C. (2003). Moral panics and the media. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Erickson, K. (2005). Wayward Puritans: A study in the sociology of deviance. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Pearson, G. (1984). Hooligan: A history of respectable fears. New York: Schocken Books. Thompson, K. (1998). Moral panics. London: Routledge.

Moral Panics and High School Crime and Violence A moral panic is an episode or period of community fear or hysteria generated by a perceived social crisis or emergency. The term moral panic was coined by sociologist Jock Young in the early 1970s and popularized by sociologist Stanley Cohen in a 1973 book, Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. It is used to designate a response to a condition, episode, person, or group of persons that society defines as a threat to societal values and interests. A moral

Moral Panics and High School Crime and Violence

panic is predicated on an exaggerated fear—that is, it occurs when a community becomes unnecessarily alarmed or, at least, reacts with more alarm than is warranted by a sober assessment of the evidence. Examples of moral panics include the witch scares of Medieval Europe and 17th-century Salem, Massachusetts, the anti-Communist crusades of the 1920s and 1950s, and, to some extent, the fear of Muslim fundamentalism that has occurred in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The United States’ “War on Drugs” has also been described as a moral panic. There have also been regional moral panics over claims that Satanic ritual abuse and child molestation were escalating in certain geographic areas. In the context of school violence, the national response to widely publicized school shootings in the late 1990s can be described as a national moral panic. It seemed to many Americans of the period that an epidemic of mass school shootings had struck U.S. schools. Children seemed to be obtaining firearms and explosives and going to schools to kill their classmates and teachers in escalating numbers. The fear of school violence led many parents to make school safety a high priority, and some parents even took their children out of the public schools altogether. Moral panics often lead to political movements and the passage of legislation and other reforms. The moral panic over school violence in the 1990s has been identified with increases in security measures and spending at many schools. The “zero tolerance” policies already in place in many schools in the early 1990s were bolstered and applied even more stringently by the late 1990s as a result of this trend. Today, more than 80%of U.S. schools have zero-tolerance policies in place requiring any violence or threats of violence to be punished by suspension or expulsion. Metal detectors and security guards are in place at many schools where they did not exist previously. Policies in most jurisdictions now require school staff and administrators to report all threats and suggestions of threats to law enforcement authorities. In many cases, the response of school authorities has been overwhelming and exaggerated, out of proportion to the supposed threat. Concern over school violence has led many school districts to suspend and expel larger numbers of students during the first years of the 21stcentury. Under the zero-tolerance policies now in place in most schools, students have been expelled for shooting paper clips with rubber bands at other students and possessing manicure kits containing metal fingernail files. Shooting spitwads or throwing crumpled pieces of paper has gotten some students suspended. Some students have even been incarcerated for saying things like “I’m going to get you” or writing scary Halloween stories with discussions of school violence. Growing numbers of students have also been arrested and processed through the criminal justice system over school-related incidents. Tremendous attention is

295

296

Moral Panics and High School Crime and Violence

now paid to preventing weapons and violence in schools, even though the most frequent disciplinary matters occurring in most schools continue to be tardiness, class absences, disrespect. and noncompliance. Social scientists have suggested that the unbalanced focus on preventing violence in schools is an exaggerated response to unrealistic fears regarding school shootings. Researchers have also documented consistent over-representations of lowincome and minority students among students expelled and suspended from school under zero-tolerance policies. Under the tough antiviolence policies imposed on most school districts in the wake of the Columbine High School, Pearl, Mississippi, and Paducah, Kentucky, episodes, African American and Latino students have borne the brunt of suspensions, expulsions, criminal prosecutions, and other punishments directed toward school-related threats of violence. This trend has persisted despite the fact that the perpetrators of the vast majority of multiple-victim school shootings have been white, middle-class students. Panic regarding school violence has also been directed at various cultural influences on children and adolescents, such as Stephen King’s novel Rage, the film The Basketball Diaries, and violent video games. In the wake of some school shootings, such as the killing of three girls at West Paducah, Kentucky, in 1997, bereaved family members sued video game makers and film producers for contributing to the violence. For the most part, such lawsuits have proved unsuccessful; however, the distributors of media with violent content have been forced to invest large amounts of money in legal representation and defense. The overreaction of school administrators and policymakers to mass school violence episodes is highlighted by injury risk data covering many years. Statistics gathered by the Justice Policy Institute and the U.S. Department of Education indicate that crime has actually decreased substantially in U.S. public schools since 1990. Less than 1% of all violent incidents involving adolescents occur on school grounds. Statistically, a child is three times more likely to be struck by lightning than to die violently at a school. Schools are safer than all other places where children gather, including homes and cars. Sociologist Donna Killingbeck has pointed out the astounding overemphasis on school violence that has typified crime coverage in recent years. Although school shootings represented only 0.4% of homicides in the 15- to 24-year-old age group during 1998, “Network evening news crime coverage [of school shootings] represented nine percent of ALL network evening news crime coverage in 1998” (Killingbeck, 2001, p. 191). Also, although accidents were by far the leading cause of death for 15- to 19-year-olds in 1998, such accidents were the topic of only 5% of national news reports. The phenomenon of moral panics says something about human social psychology. Decades of research by social scientists has established that people tend to adhere to the political, ideological, and social views of the majority, even when

Movies and School Crime and Violence

such views are demonstrably false. For example, people in groups tend to repeat assessments of beauty and some geometric measurements given by their peers. With regard to social risks, people tend to respond to perceived risks that create immediate fear among others in their communities with more alarm than they do with regard to more real risks to their lives. Roger I. Roots Further Reading Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the Mods and Rockers. London: MacGibbon and Kee. Heaviside, S., Rowand, C., Williams, C., & Farris, E. (1998). Violence and discipline problems in U.S. public schools: 1996–97 (NCES 98-030). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Killingbeck, D. (2001). The role of television news in the construction of school violence as a “moral panic.” Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 8(3), 186–202 Sunstein, C. (2002). The laws of fear. Review of The Perception of Risk, by Paul Slovic. Harvard Law Review, 115, 1119–168.

Movies and School Crime and Violence What, if any, are the connections between media violence and violence in schools? Does media violence cause violence in schools? Does exposure to media violence desensitize media consumers? To use Freedman’s (2002) analogy, is media a villain or a scapegoat? These questions underlie research on the effects of media violence in society, and public discussion about precipitating factors that are thought to cause youth violence. Public concern about violence in movies (as well as video games and television) has been a continual theme in analyses of media violence, even while many people insist that movies are “just entertainment.” For media analysts such as Leistyna and Alper (2007), such a perspective is naı¨ve. Specifically referring to television, they argue that “[i]t is precisely because we believe television is merely entertainment that we need to take its power and influence seriously” (p. 55). Similarly, Tisdell (2008) argues that “media have the power both to educate, when people critically reflect on the messages they are getting through the media, and to ‘miseducate,’ when viewers are passive consumers who don’t think much about the images and messages that they are receiving” (p. 49). Giroux (1999) makes a more emphatic claim, that media culture “has become a substantial, if not the primary,

297

298

Movies and School Crime and Violence

educational force in regulating the meanings, values, and tastes . . . ” and that it “defines childhood” (pp. 2–3). Media, then, including movies, constitute a “process of influence” (Potter, 2003, p. 53) in society. In his extensive review of the scientific research on the effects of media violence on youth, Freedman (2002) concludes that there is “fairly good evidence” (p. 194) that media violence is correlated with aggressiveness of youth. Highly aggressive boys tend to be drawn to violent media more strongly than are less aggressive boys. For many people, the link between violence in movies and television and violent youth crimes seems obvious. However, as Freedman points out, correlation is not the same as causation. Among other problems, correlation does not account for the influence of intervening variables. Additionally, Freedman notes that correlation coefficients among various studies are not consistent, and that the strength of the relationship has been found to be weak across numerous studies. Violent movies, then, do not cause violence in schools, even if they are an influence in society and upon youth. Nevertheless, journalists, politicians, judges, and religious leaders (among others) often point an accusing finger at various forms of media to perpetuate the idea that violence depicted in films and other media causes violence in society, including schools. In the documentary film Bowling for Columbine, for instance, the aggressive music of so-called shock rocker Marilyn Manson was repeatedly cited by conservative politicians and religious leaders as one of the causes of the Columbine High School massacre that took place in 1999. This artist’s music, they concluded, should be banned and his concerts canceled. More generally, the perception that rates of youth violence have increased because of youth’s embrace of violent media is widespread. In reality, such rates have declined since the early 1990s, even though homicides resulting from violence in schools have increased. As an influential but not causal factor in society, violence in movies—and particularly in action films—has been implicated in male-perpetrated violence against women, as well as against other men. As Kaufman (1990) observes, Arnold Schwarzenegger declaring, “Consider this a divorce,” as he blows his wife away in Total Recall is presented as justifiable homicide, suggesting that the woman deserved what she got. In one screening of The Shining men in the audience cheered as Jack Nicholson attacked his wife Wendy, who had been depicted as whiny and irritating, with an ax. Media critic Katz makes a similar observation in Jhally (2002), noting that mainstream media culture typically portrays girls and women as deserving to be dominated and abused by men. In combination with television, video games, and music video media, such violence against women becomes a social narrative that normalizes misogyny and degradation of women, and perpetuates the notion that women should be sexually available, but entirely disposable, to men.

Movies and School Crime and Violence

Movie violence has also been considered as a reflection of broader social and political contexts. Reynolds (2007), for example, notes that Much of the muscle men action movies of the 1980s served to bolster masculine spirits after the debacle of Vietnam . . . and the consequent Vietnam syndrome. In fact, these muscular heroes helped to rewrite our memories of the politics of Vietnam and reconstruct a more “honorable” masculinity. (p. 343) According to Giroux (1999), the Rambo franchise (beginning with First Blood;) and other Hollywood action movies epitomized larger-than-life violent masculinity that collectively restored American macho heroism and demonized the Vietnamese people. In the Hollywood rewrite of the Vietnam war during the Reagan era, “[c]hemical warfare, forced settlements, and the burning of villages on the part of the U.S. military were written out of history [and replaced by] a vision of masculinity that resonated with the conservative image of national identity and patriotism that informed the Reagan years” (pp. 151–152). Depictions of explicit physical violence in movies are just one form of violence presented in these media; relational violence is also shown. Movies and other media provide the public with narratives that glorify and reward behaviors such as revenge, cruelty, ruthlessness, and dominance. For instance, films like Mean Girls may normalize relationships among girls and young women that are characterized by nonphysical forms of violence, such as spreading vicious rumors, developing exclusive cliques, and uttering verbal slurs. Similarly, the American Pie franchise provides a template for boys and young men where losing one’s virginity at almost any cost is legitimate, acceptable, and even celebrated, even if it means that women are sexually objectified and boys are sexually predatory. Alternatively, perhaps such films merely reflect attitudes and narratives that already exist in society. Either way, films that routinely depict nonphysical forms of relational violence might also be a contributing factor to, even if not a cause of, violence in schools. In their research on bullying in schools, Craig, Pepler, and Atlas (2000), for instance, focus on the ways in which bullying is mostly relational rather than physical. Chesney-Lind and Irwin’s (2008) perspective suggests that violence of girls and young women is not on the rise, even if media suggest otherwise: it appears that while public fear of the “super-predator” male youth has waned, the public is still very concerned about its female version—the new bad girl, largely because of an unrelenting media hype showcasing images of mean, bad, and violent girls. (p. 31)

299

300

Movies and School Crime and Violence

Media-driven hype about “bad girls,” they add, has not resulted in increased rates of actual violent crime of girls, but “increased surveillance and policing of girlhood” (p. 31). Overall, North Americans (among other people) consume vast amounts of violence-oriented media. Katz in Jhally (2002) argues that slasher films such as Friday the 13th, Halloween, and I Know What You Did Last Summer depict not just violence against women, but sexualized violence. Such depictions may be a factor in normalizing sexual assaults of girls and women and teen dating violence perpetrated by young men. Rates of rape in the United States have not declined in the past few years, unlike overall crime rates. Recently, entertainment in the form of brutality, sadism, and cruelty has proliferated through so-called torture porn films such as the Saw and Hostel franchises, among others. Are such films merely harmless entertainment, or do they contribute to a generation whose members some believe to be increasingly sociopathic? As Steinberg argues, the power of the media is that appears to be benign. But she also adds that media “have become the oxygen of our existence . . . [and that] media affect us all” (p. xiv). Gerald Walton

Further Reading Astor, R. A., Pitner, R. O., Benbenishy, R., & Meyer, H. A. (2002). Public concern and focus on school violence. In: L. A. Rapp-Paglicci, A. R. Roberts, & J. S. Wodarski (Eds.), Handbook of violence (pp. 262–302). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Carpenter, J. (Director). (1978). Halloween [motion picture]. Las Angeles, CA: Compass International. Chesney-Lind, M., & Irwin, K. (2008). Beyond bad girls: Gender, violence, and hype. New York: Routledge. Craig, W. M., Pepler, D. J., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying on the playground and in the classroom. International Journal of School Psychology, 21, 22–36. Cuklanz, L. M., & Moorti, S. (2009). Local violence, global media: Feminist analyses of gendered representations. New York: Peter Lang. Cunningham, S. (Director). Friday the 13th [motion picture]. Las Angeles, CA: Georgetown Productions. Freedman, J. L. (2002). Media violence and its effect on aggression: Assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto. Gillespie, J. (Director). (1997). I know what you did last summer [motion picture]. Las Angeles, CA: Columbia Pictures.

Movies and School Crime and Violence

Giroux, H. (1999). The mouse that roared: Disney and the end of innocence. New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Goldstein, J. (1998). Why we watch: The attractions of violent entertainment. New York: Oxford University Press. Jhally, S. (Director). (2002). Tough guise: Violence, media, and the crisis in masculinity [motion picture]. Northampton, MA: Media Education Foundation. Kaufman, M. (1990, December 6). A letter to Marc Le´pine. Toronto Star, p. A23. Kirsh, S. J. (2006). Children, adolescents, and media violence: A critical look at the research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kotcheff, T. (Director). (1982). First blood [motion picture]. Las Angeles, CA: Anabasis. Kubrick, S. (Director). (1980). The shining [motion picture]. Las Angeles, CA: Warner Bros. Leistyna, P., & Alper, L. (2007). Critical media literacy for the twenty-first century: Taking our media seriously. In D. Macedo & S. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Media literacy: A reader (pp. 54–78). New York: Peter Lang. Moore, M. (Director). (2002). Bowling for Columbine [motion picture]. Las Angeles, CA: Alliance Atlantis Communications. Nakaya, A. C. (2008). Media violence. San Diego, CA: Referencepoint Press. Potter, W. J. (2003). The 11 myths of media violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Reynolds, W. (2007). Under siege and out of reach: Steven Seagal and the paradox and politics of new age masculinity. In D. Macedo & S. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Media literacy: A reader (pp. 340–352). New York: Peter Lang. Roth, E. (Director). (2005). Hostel [motion picture]. Las Angeles, CA: Hostel. Steinberg, S. R. (2007). Media literacy: A reader. New York: Peter Lang. Steinberg, S. R. (2007). Reading media critically. In D. Macedo & S. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Media literacy: A reader (pp. xiii–xv). New York: Peter Lang. Strasburger, V. C., & Wilson, B. J. (2002). Children, adolescents, and the media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tisdell, E. J. (2008). Critical media literacy and transformative learning: Drawing on pop culture and entertainment media in teaching for diversity in adult higher education. Journal of Transformative Education, 6(1), 48–67. Verhoeven, P. (Director). (1990). Total recall [motion picture]. Las Angeles, CA: Carolco International. Wan, J. (Director). (2004). Saw [motion picture]. Santa Monica, CA: Lions Gate Entertainment Waters, M. (Director). (2004). Mean girls [motion picture]. Las Angeles, CA: Paramount Pictures. Weitz, P. (Director). (1999). American pie [motion picture]. Las Angeles, CA: Universal Pictures.

301

302

Music and School Crime and Violence

Music and School Crime and Violence For more than half a century, popular music has been widely criticized for contributing to a variety of problematic behaviors among adolescents, ranging from early sexual activity to suicide. Initially, social critics and commentators claimed that popular musicians and bands such as Elvis Presley and the Beatles were encouraging young people to engage in early sexual activity. For example, when Presley first appeared on the Ed Sullivan show in 1956, the home viewing audience was able to see the performer only from the waist up. The cameras focused on the upper portion of Presley’s body rather than providing a comprehensive view, because Presley’s trademark hip gyrations were considered to be too sexually suggestive for mainstream America, especially for the young viewers of the Ed Sullivan show. Twenty years later, in 1976 the Reverend Jesse Jackson led a campaign to ban “sexy songs” from being played on the radio, citing concerns that songs with sexual references were contributing to high rates of teen pregnancy. Over the following decades, the criticism of popular music shifted its focus. Rather than highlighting the sexual content of popular music, critics began to condemn popular music for contributing to alcohol use, drug use, and violence among adolescents. For instance, in 1985 Tipper Gore (wife of then Tennessee Senator and later U.S. Vice President Albert Gore) helped found the Parents Music Resource Center, which claimed that some types of rock music such as punk rock and heavy metal were contributing to increased drug use and violence among young people. The Parents Music Resource Center lobbied federal lawmakers to place restrictions on adolescents’ access to rock music; as a result of its campaign, parental advisory notices were eventually placed on the packages of music with explicit lyrics. A little over a decade later, in response to growing concerns about an increase in youth violence—concerns generated by the school shootings in Jonesboro, Arkansas, Littleton, Colorado, Springfield, Oregon, and West Paducah, Kentucky in the late 1990s—President Bill Clinton commissioned the Federal Trade Commission to study the marketing of violent entertainment, inclusive of the marketing of music with violent lyrics. More recently, in 2005 the Reverend Al Sharpton asked the Federal Communications Commission to punish musicians who had become involved in violent activity by denying the musicians airplay on television and radio for a period of 90 days. Critics of popular music such as Tipper Gore and Al Sharpton charge that it is not only the lyrics and message of the music that contribute to risky behaviors such as alcohol use and violence, but also the lifestyles of the musicians who may serve as role models for young people. Rap music and musicians, in particular, have been widely criticized for encouraging youth violence. In its earliest

Music and School Crime and Violence

U.S. musician Elvis Presley was only shown above the waist on The Ed Sullivan Show in 1956 because his hip-shaking dances were considered too suggestive for the home audience. (AP/Wide World Photos)

days, this genre included controversial songs such as “Cop Killer” by Ice-T and “Deep Cover” by Dr. Dre, which have explicitly violent messages. There have also been widely publicized incidents of violence involving rap musicians. For example, during his brief life the enormously popular rapper and actor Tupac Shakur (founder of the rap group Thug Life) was suspected of numerous criminal activities and convicted on several criminal charges, including sexually assaulting a woman in a hotel room and physically assaulting a former employee. In addition to engaging in violent behavior, Shakur was the victim of violence. In 1994, he was shot and robbed while in the lobby of a recording studio in New York City but survived the assault. Two years later, he was again shot, this time in a driveby incident in Las Vegas. Shakur died in a hospital several days later owing to complications related to the shooting. The aforementioned incidents involving Shakur, plus numerous other incidents of violence involving rap musicians such as Dr. Dre, Snoop Dog, and 50 Cent, have fueled widespread criticism of rap music. While many individuals and groups have condemned popular music and musicians for encouraging risky behaviors among youth, little empirical evidence exists to indicate that music affects risky behavior (e.g., drug use) or encourages

303

304

Music and School Crime and Violence

violence. Whereas an abundance of research indicates that viewing violent actions (e.g., violent television programs, violent movies) encourages violent behavior among young people, few scholars have investigated how listening to music with violent lyrics may influence violent behavior among youths. There is a very limited body of research that suggests certain types of music can contribute to hostile attitudes, suicidal behaviors, and the acceptance of violence against women, but there are no empirical studies that indicate a specific genre of music such as heavy metal or rap has a direct impact on levels of youth violence, nor are there any scientific studies that indicate the availability of music with explicitly violent lyrics is correlated with levels of school violence. Despite the paucity of evidence supporting the contention that music with violent lyrics contributes to violent behavior, a number of individuals and groups have continued to condemn popular musicians for contributing to risky and violent behaviors among youths. For example, in 2007 the police in Colorado Springs claimed that an increase in homicides in the city was linked to violent rap music and the growing number of hip-hop clubs in the city. As previously noted, however, little empirical data exists that proves music with violent lyrics causes violent behavior. Also, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that the availability or popularity of music with violent lyrics has any impact on rates of violent crime. In fact, even though music with violent lyrics remains widely available, the rates of violent crime (inclusive of violent crimes committed by youths and schoolassociated violent crimes) have decreased at a steady pace since the mid-1990s— a social trend that indicates the availability of music with violent lyrics has little or no affect on levels of youth violence. Ben Brown Further Reading Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L., & Eubanks, J. (2003). Exposure to violent media: The effects of songs with violent lyrics on aggressive thoughts and feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 960–971. Associated Press. (2005, March 24). Sharpton complains to FCC about violence in rap, requests penalties. USA Today [online version]. Retrieved from http:// usatoday.com Federal Trade Commission. (2000, September). Marketing violent entertainment to children: A review of self regulation and industry practices in the motion picture, music recording, and electronic game industries. Washington, DC: Author. Federal Trade Commission. (2001, December). Marketing violent entertainment to children: A one-year follow-up review of self regulation and industry practices in the motion picture, music recording, and electronic game industries. Washington, DC: Author.

Muslims and School Crime and Violence

Frosch, D. (2007, September 30). Colorado police link rise in violence to music. New York Times [online version]. Retrieved from http://www.newyorktimes .com Lawrence, J. S., & Joyner, D. J. (1991). The effects of sexually violent rock music on males’ acceptance of violence against women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 49–63. Martin, L., & Segrave, K. (1993). Anti-rock: The opposition to rock n’ roll. Jackson, TN: Da Capo Press. Stack, S., & Gundlach, J. (1992). The effect of country music on suicide. Social Forces, 71, 211–218.

Muslims and School Crime and Violence Although faith can bring people together, it is also the one of the primary reasons for violent conflict throughout human history. Despite the fact that the United States was founded on the principle that all should be free to practice their religious beliefs, people who are non-Christian in the United States have often suffered discrimination, harassment, and assault. This situation worsened after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as many in the nation began to associate Muslim people with terrorism. In the United Kingdom, Muslims suffered increased harassment after a series of terrorist bombings in London in 2005. Throughout both countries, Muslim people—or, in some cases, those who appeared to be Muslim (for instance, men with long beards, people with Arabic last names)—endured verbal and even physical harassment. Many have referred to this fear of Muslims as Islamophobia. This harassment has also extended to Muslim students at schools and on college campuses. In England, students have reported being harassed and being forced to pray outside on the playground because they were denied access to a room in which to meet, despite a legal obligation schools have to allow for the observance of all religious practices. Most U.K. students report that such bullying and abuse goes unpunished. France bans Muslim students from wearing head scarves—hijabs—in public schools. Students who wore the hijab were often tormented, yet critics contend a ban is not the best way to resolve bias or to create unity. In September 2010, the French Senate approved a ban on wearing the facial veil—the burqa—in public spaces. In February 2010, an Arab American Muslim student in the eighth grade at Beckendorff Junior High School in Katy, Texas, was violently assaulted after enduring months of racial and ethnic slurs. His jaw was broken in two places. The boy’s family reported that the bullies called their son a terrorist and told him to “go home.” Although the school district claimed the victim never reported the bullying, the boy told the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that he had reported the bullying at least three times to school authorities.

305

306

Muslims and School Crime and Violence

In October 2010, four teenagers from Staten Island, New York, were charged with hate crime offenses for bullying a Muslim classmate in the previous school year. The bullies frequently called the Muslim boy a “terrorist,” spit in his face, and punched him in the groin. In May 2010, the U.S. Department of Education began an investigation into antiMuslim harassment in the Minnesota Public Schools in Owatonna and St. Cloud. The investigation into possible civil rights violations was prompted by allegations that students and teachers had harassed Muslim students. Students reportedly shoved bacon into the face of a Muslim student, and a teacher was said to have repeatedly given students a can of air freshener spray and asked them to spray it when Muslim students walked into the classroom. Racial slurs and disparaging comments about Islam were alleged to have been made by students as well as teachers. In late October 2010, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan cautioned that certain types of bullying—those related to sexual orientation and religion—may violate federal civil rights laws. He implored schools to take these matters seriously and to proactively address bullying. Recognizing that bullying based on religion worsened during the Gulf War in 1991, the National Union of Teachers in the United Kingdom provided teachers with a booklet in 2003 that demonstrated how to teach about all sides of the war in Iraq and to recognize signs of bullying. CAIR has also developed An Educator’s Guide to Islamic Religious Practices (available at http://www .cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/education_guide.pdf) to help educators become more sensitive to the needs of their Muslim students. Campuses also saw an increase in anti-Muslim speech and harassment of Muslim students after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. A series of incidents were reported at Yale University directly following the invasion. “Muslim students have felt physical dangers in everyday situations . . . [been] labeled unpatriotic and therefore terrorists . . . [and been] ostracized based on their beliefs,” says Sumeyya Ashraf, president of Yale’s Muslim Student Association (Chitty, n.d., para 9). At the University of California–Los Angeles Medical Center in 2003, Muslim prayer rugs in the chapel, which is nondenominational, were found soaked in pig’s blood. Students are not the only targets of anti-Muslim sentiment. Cases of discrimination against Muslim employees are being investigated at colleges across the United States. CAIR civil rights consultant Hassan Mirza says a Muslim at an Oklahoma university was repeatedly harassed by coworkers, who hung pictures depicting him as a terrorist and labeling him an ‘‘al-Qaeda operative.” A Muslim woman claims she was fired from her job at a Maryland university for having a copy of the Koran on her computer. Laura L. Finley

Muslims and School Crime and Violence

Further Reading Birkey, A. (2010, May 26). Feds to investigate anti-Muslim activity at Minnesota schools. The Minnesota Independent. Retrieved October 27, 2010, from http:// minnesotaindependent.com/59348/feds-to-investigate-anti-muslim-activity-at -minnesota-schools CAIR: Injured Texas Muslim student says he did report bullying. (n.d.). PR Newswire. Retrieved October 27, 2010, from http://www.prnewswire.com/ news-releases/cair-injured-texas-muslim-student-says- he-did-report-bullying -83824427.html Chitty, G. (2003, May 9). Anti-Muslim attacks penetrate U.S “hallowed halls of Ivy.” IPS. Retrieved October 27, 2010, from http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp? idnews=18109 French burqa ban clears last legal obstacle. (2010, October 7). CNN. Retrieved October 27, 2010, from http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-07/world/france.burqa .ban_1_french-burqa-ban-ban-last-year- full-face-veil?_s=PM:WORLD Samuels, C. (2010, October 27). Bullying may violate civil rights, Duncan warns schools. Education Week. Retrieved October 27, 2010. from http://www .edweek.org/login.html?source=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/10/ 27/10bully.h30.html&destination=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/10/ 27/10bully.h30.html&levelId=2100 Schools warned about anti-Islamic bullying. (2003, March 12). BBC News Roundup. Retrieved October 27, 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/ hi/uk/newsid_2842000/2842729.stm Smolowe, J. (2010, October 18). I was bullied. People, 66–69. Staten Island teens charged with anti-Muslim crime. (2010, October 11). New York Post. Retrieved October 26, 2010, from http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ staten_island/staten_island_teens_charged_with_SrukrkbX LjSH4cUwCzuYeK Tan, S. (2006, November 24). Since 9/11, students bullied for being Muslim in schools. The Muslim News. Retrieved October 27, 2010, from http://www .muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=2717

307

This page intentionally left blank

N National School Safety Center The National School Safety Center (NSSC) was created by a presidential directive in 1984 under a noncompetitive two-year grant from the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The NSSC represents a partnership between the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Education, and Pepperdine University. It was established to help restore school safety and discipline through a comprehensive national program of training, technical assistance, and coordination. It was modeled after the California School Safety Center, which was established in 1981 in the California State Attorney General’s office. The NSSC’s overall goal is to provide a national focus on school safety. Ten tasks originally defined the project: 1. Encourage effective interagency efforts to improve school safety 2. Gather nationwide information on school safety and crime prevention techniques 3. Analyze nationwide legal information regarding school discipline 4. Develop a distinguished national school safety information network 5. Participate in relevant conferences 6. Create a national awards program to recognize exemplary school safety programs 7. Publish a national school safety bulletin 8. Prepare school crime and safety materials for use by educators 9. Conduct a nationwide multimedia school safety campaign 10. Liaise with key officials to provide assistance in the prevention of school crime

309

310

National Threat Assessment Center

Presently, the NSSC’s national headquarters are in Westlake Village, California. According to its current mission statement, the NSSC serves as an advocate for safe and secure schools and as an agent for the prevention of school crime and violence. It provides schools with quality information, resources, consultation, and training, and it promotes strategies, practices, and programs that support safe schools. NSSC’s communications section conducts a comprehensive national public relations program that includes public service announcements, films, publications, resource papers, articles, conferences, and other promotional activities. Its School Safety News Service is published nine times annually and is considered one of the United States’ leading school crime prevention news journals. It features topical articles by prominent authors and draws attention to trends and exemplary programs for delinquency prevention and school safety. The NSSC also maintains a resource center with more than 50,000 articles, publications, and films on victim’s rights, school security, student discipline, bullying, character development, law-related education, drug trafficking and abuse, school/law enforcement partnerships, public/community relations, and attendance issues. The NSSC’s field services section coordinates a national network of educational, legal, business, and civil leaders who cooperate in an effort to maintain safe schools. The field services section provides online training and technical assistance programs. The NSSC believes that schools have the ability and obligation to create and maintain secure and effective places of learning. It contends further that this work is best done with the help of school safety partners, and that today great opportunities exist to apply the best of school safety research and practices to the vision of safe schools for all students. Wendell Johnson Further Reading National School Safety Center. (October 22, 2009). Retrieved from www .schoolsafety.us United States General Accounting Office. (1985). Information on the National School Safety Center: Report to the Honorable Arlen Specter, Chairman, Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate. Washington, DC: Author.

National Threat Assessment Center The National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) was established in the United States in 1998 by the U.S. Secret Service with the aim of identifying, assessing, and managing “persons who have the interest and ability to mount attacks against

National Threat Assessment Center

Secret Service protectees.” Its mission is to “provide guidance on threat assessment both within the Secret Service and to its law enforcement and public safety partners.” The NTAC has been involved in conducting studies into attacks that have taken place on public officials and figures, and also within schools. The latter studies followed a rash of school attacks that were viewed with much concern owing to the inability of the authorities to protect every school at all times from every potential threat. To minimize the risk, in 2002, the NTAC conducted a Safe School Initiative (SSI), whereby its investigators studied all of the school shootings and other attacks related to schools that occurred over the period December 1974 to May 2000. This effort involved reviewing police records, school records, court documents, and other material for 37 incidents involving 41 students and exstudents. Investigators were also able to interview a number of the shooters themselves. Based on these data, the NTAC concluded that most of the shootings were not impulsive, and that some of the shooters had engaged in extensive planning of their attacks. NTAC investigators also found that although there was no single “profile” of a shooter, the overwhelming majority of the students who became shooters had engaged in behavior that worried at least one adult, and sometimes a number of teachers or other staff at the school—and in certain cases, at least some students knew that a shooting might take place but did not warn the school authorities. Some of the shooters had discussed the ideas with others, and a few kept diaries in which they planned the attacks. The NTAC report also found that most of the shooters had used weapons prior to the attack, and that most of the shooting incidents were “stopped by means other than law enforcement intervention.” In May 2002, the NTAC published its report, The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative by Bryan Vossekull and Dr. Robert A. Fein, Directors of the National Violence Prevention and Study Center; Dr. Marisa Reddy of the NTAC; Associate Professor Randy Borum of the University of South Florida; and William Modzeleski, Director of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program of the U.S. Department of Education. The organization also published another report, Threat Assessment in Schools: A Guide to Managing Threatening Situations and Creating Safe School Climates, and made both reports available for free online. Justin Corfield Further Reading Dedman, B. (1999, June 21). Secret Service is seeking pattern for school killers; Gunmen’s motives and behavior examined.New York Times, p. A10. National Threat Assessment Center: http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/ntac.shtml.

311

312

National Youth Survey

National Youth Survey Beginning in 1976, the National Youth Survey has been administered to adolescents ages 11 through 17, with the purpose of gauging attitudes and behaviors on a variety of topics. The survey, which was created by Delbert Elliott, is run out of the University of Colorado at Boulder’s Institute of Behavioral Science and Institute for Behavioral Genetics. The original survey included 1,725 respondents. It is a longitudinal study, so respondents were aged 46 through 55 in 2011. In 1993, researchers began interviewing the partners and the children of the original respondents as well. Consequently, the name of the survey was changed to the National Youth Survey—Family Study in 2000. The survey is administered in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia, and respondents to the survey were randomly chosen from across the United States. Trained researchers administer the National Youth Survey by interviewing respondents for approximately 90 minutes. Originally, interviews included the young person and his or her parent. Questions address attitudes, beliefs, and values related to both conventional and deviant behavior. They cover problems at home, in neighborhoods, and in schools, including but not limited to victimization, pregnancy, substance abuse, depression, dating violence, sexual activity, school grades, communication with adults and community involvement. The National Youth Survey—Family Study includes additional questions that cover the respondent’s family, family relationships, educational attainment, and careers. In the year 2002, researchers began collecting DNA from the respondents. The current sample has the following demographic characteristics: • • • • • •

79% are white 15% are African American 4.5% are Latino or Hispanic 1% are Asian American/Pacific Islander 0.5% are Native American 53% are male

Several major research articles have been published based on the National Youth Survey, some of which are listed in the “Further Reading” section. The National Youth Survey has also been used in a number of doctoral dissertations. Laura L. Finley Further Reading National Youth Survey—Family Study: http://www.colorado.edu/IBS/NYSFS/ index.html

National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center

Books Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Menard, S. (1989) Multiple problem youth: Delinquency, drugs and mental health problems. New York: Springer.

Journal Articles Elliott, D. S. (1994). Serious violent offenders: Onset, developmental course, and termination. Criminology 32, 1–22. Mihalic, S. W., & Elliott, D. S. (1997). Short- and long-term consequences of adolescent work. Youth and Society 28(4), 464–498.

National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center In the fall of 1999 the White House (under the leadership of President Bill Clinton) created the Council on Youth Violence in response to the series of school shootings that took place the late 1990s, such as the 1997 shootings at Heath High School in West Paducah, Kentucky; the 1998 shootings at Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon; and the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. The initial objective of the Council on Youth Violence was to coordinate federal youth violence prevention activities. In cooperation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other federal agencies, the Council on Youth Violence developed the National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center. The National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center was created to serve as a clearinghouse of information about youth violence and youth violence prevention strategies, with its overall goal being to make quality information on violence prevention easily available to the public. In addition, the National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center sought to provide technical assistance in the creation of youth violence prevention programs. As computers and information technology advanced, the Center established a user-friendly website (www.safeyouth.org) through which anyone may readily access a variety of information about youth violence, factors associated with youth violence (e.g., gang activity), and the prevention of youth violence. The website of the National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center contains numerous publications about a variety of forms of youth violence, such as bullying, dating violence, and school violence. In addition, it provides information

313

314

Natural Born Killers

about funding opportunities such as grant announcements and links to directories of funding sources. The website also offers a variety of information about youth violence prevention programs and links to other government websites such as those of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Department of Justice, which contain even more publications about effective youth violence prevention programs and strategies. The numerous links currently available on the website of the National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center reflect the most recent evolutionary change of the agency. In 2007, the Center altered its mission to include the facilitation of comprehensive community youth violence prevention programs. The agency’s new objectives are to provide an online forum that encourages collaboration among local government and community leaders who are trying to prevent youth violence and to provide such individuals with assistance in their efforts to develop and assess youth violence prevention programs and policies. Ben Brown Further Reading National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center: www.safeyouth.org U.S. Department of Justice: www.usdoj.gov

Natural Born Killers Natural Born Killers, a film released in 1994, drew a cult following for its unique cinematography and hyperviolence. The film tells the story of Mickey Knox and his wife Mallory, who go on a cross-country shooting spree. Through flashbacks, viewers learn that Mallory grew up with an abusive father and neglectful mother. Mickey rescues her from that situation, and the two begin their life of crime. When Mickey is arrested for grand theft auto for stealing his father’s car, he escapes and gets Mallory; the two then kill her father by drowning him in a fish tank and burn her mother in her bed. Throughout the scene, a canned laugh track can be heard, making it both visually and auditorily disturbing. The pair continue their killing spree, which includes 48 victims in New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada. Authorities are pursuing them, as are media sources. Detective Jack Scagnetti seems obsessed with Mallory. Journalist Wayne Gale, host of a TV show American Maniacs, which profiles mass murderers, enjoys the ratings he gets when he covers Mickey and Mallory’s exploits. After a strange scene in a desert with a Navajo Indian, Mickey and Mallory are captured and beaten by police. The film jumps ahead to one year later, with the two in prison and set to be moved to a mental institution, having both been

Natural Born Killers

judged insane. Mickey agrees to do a live interview with Wayne Gale during the Super Bowl. In it, he declares himself a “natural born killer” and incites other inmates to break free. All hell breaks loose. Mallory ends up killing Detective Scagnetti, and Mickey and Mallory escape with Wayne Gale. They later kill him, with the entire incident being televised. The last scene shows the couple some years later. They are in an RV and Mallory, clearly pregnant, is watching their two children play. Natural Born Killers was nominated for a Golden Globe Award in 1995 and two MTV movie awards in the same year. Juliette Lewis won the Best Actress award at the 1994 Venice Film Festival for her performance as Mallory, and director Oliver Stone won the Special Jury Prize. Some have called the film a brilliant satire and sociological commentary on media. Critics contend that Natural Born Killers not only glorified violence, but also incited real-life violence among viewers. On March 5, 1995, Sarah Edmondson and Ben Darras, both age 18 at the time, spent the evening together in a cabin in Oklahoma, taking LSD and watching Natural Born Killers. Reportedly they viewed the film several times in a row. Early the following morning, they left in Edmondson’s Nissan Maxima, armed with a .38-caliber revolver. On March 7, they arrived at a cotton mill in Hernando, Mississippi, where Darras killed William Savage, shooting him twice in the head. The pair then traveled to a convenience store in Ponchatoula, Louisiana, where Edmondson shot store cashier Patsy Byers. Byers survived but was left a paraplegic and eventually died of cancer. Her husband, Lonnie Byers, filed suit against Edmondson and Darras on July 26, 1995, and in March 2006, amended the suit to include Time Warner Entertainment, Oliver Stone, and others associated with the production of Natural Born Killers. That portion of the suit was dismissed on January 23, 1997. Fourteen-year-old Barry Loukaitis, who shot several people in his Moses Lake, Washington, school in 1996, reportedly loved the film and tried to emulate the main character, Mickey. Similarly, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, who killed three students in a Paducah, Kentucky, high school in 1997, loved the film. Attorneys for the parents of Carneal’s victims have blamed the media for the shooter’s actions, filing a lawsuit in April 1999 against Internet pornography providers, motion picture studios, and computer game manufacturers. The suits were subsequently dismissed. Allegedly, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the Columbine shooters, were fans of Natural Born Killers as well. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Kunich, J. Natural born copycat killers and the law of shock torts. Washington University Law Quarterly, 78, 1157–1270. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from http:// lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/78-4/1157Kunich.pdf

315

316

New Jersey v. T.L.O.

Natural Born Killers: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110632/synopsis Oliver Stone and Natural Born Killers timeline. (n.d.). Retrieved May 4, 2010, from http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID =3962

New Jersey v. T.L.O. On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in New Jersey happened upon two girls smoking tobacco cigarettes in a school restroom. One of the girls was 14-year-old T.L.O. (a pseudonym). The teacher brought both girls to the assistant vice principal, Theodore Choplick, who interrogated them about the smoking incident. While the other girl admitted to smoking in the bathroom, T.L.O. asserted that she had not. Suspicious that T.L.O. was lying, Choplick proceeded to open T.L.O.’s purse, which contained a pack of cigarettes. Upon removing the pack of cigarettes, he noticed cigarette-rolling papers, which caused him to believe that the purse might contain marijuana. Choplick then removed all of the purse’s contents to reveal a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, several empty plastic bags, an index card listing the names of students who owed T.L.O. money, two letters from students indicating that T.L.O. was supplying marijuana to other students, and a large sum of money in single-dollar denominations. Mr. Choplick then phoned T.L.O.’s mother and turned over all of the contents in the purse to the police. In a confession to police, T.L.O. admitted that she had been dealing marijuana at her high school. The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Middlesex County, New Jersey, filed delinquency charges against T.L.O. based on the evidence in her purse and her admission of drug dealing at school. T.L.O. moved to suppress the evidence found in her purse, charging that Choplick violated her Fourth Amendment rights by conducting an allegedly unlawful search. As part of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment protects U.S. citizens against unreasonable search and seizure. It requires judicially approved search warrants to be issued based on probable cause, or the reasonable belief that a person has committed a particular crime. The juvenile court denied T.L.O.’s motion to suppress the evidence, maintaining that a school official does not need a judicial warrant and may search a student if there is “reasonable suspicion” of a crime or “reasonable cause” to believe that the ability to search is necessary to maintain and enforce school discipline policies. On March 23, 1981, the court found T.L.O. to be delinquent and on January 8, 1982, sentenced her to one year’s probation. T.L.O. then appealed her conviction. The Appellate Division found no Fourth Amendment violation.

New Jersey v. T.L.O.

T.L.O. persisted and appealed the Appellate Division’s ruling to the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that warrantless searches by school officials do not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the official “has reasonable grounds to believe that a student possesses evidence of illegal activity or activity that would interfere with school discipline and order.” However, the majority opinion of the New Jersey Supreme Court held that Choplick did not have “reasonable grounds.” Possession of cigarettes did not violate school rules and, therefore, did not necessitate emptying out T.L.O.’s purse. Additionally, the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by state officials, which includes teachers and administrators. Based on this line of reasoning, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the appellate division’s ruling and ordered the evidence in T.L.O.’s purse suppressed. The state of New Jersey appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States in New Jersey v. T.L.O. (No. 83-712, 469 U.S. 325; argued: March 28, 1984; decided: January 15, 1985). Justice Byron White delivered the Court opinion. In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the searches by school officials are constitutional without a warrant as long as they are reasonable. The court argued that while schoolchildren should have legitimate expectations of privacy, the school has an equally legitimate responsibility to maintain a positive and safe learning environment. School officials do not need judicial warrants. Instead, school officials are held to the standard of “reasonableness.” A school official has the right to search if he or she has “reasonable grounds to believe that a student possesses evidence of illegal activity or activity that would interfere with school discipline and order.” According to the Supreme Court, Choplick had reasonable grounds to believe that T.L.O. was engaged in illegal activity. Mary Christianakis Further Reading Alexander, S. M. (2004). Too much protection and, at the same time, not enough: Inconsistent treatment of adolescents by the Supreme Court. DePaul University Law Review, 53(3), 1739–1774. Handler, J.G. (1994). Ballentine’s law dictionary: Legal assistant edition. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers. Mansukhani, S. H. (1995). School searches after New Jersey v. T.L.O.: Are there any limits? Journal of Family Law, 34(3), 345–385. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (n.d.). Retrieved December 28, 2009, from http://www .law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0469_0325_ZS.html Pinard, M. (2003). From the classroom to the courtroom: Reassessing Fourth Amendment standards in public school searches involving law enforcement authorities. Arizona Law Review, 45(1), 1067–1128.

317

318

No Child Left Behind Act

Zane, D. E. (1986). School searches under the Fourth Amendment: New Jersey v. T.L.O. Cornell Law Review, 72, 368–390.

No Child Left Behind Act The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) had its origin in the July 1998 U.S Department of Education rule called the principles of effectiveness. This rule, which was passed in light of a spike in youth drug use in the 1990s, required school districts receiving state funding to plan and evaluate their drug prevention and response programs that had previously been enacted under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program. Schools were called upon to conduct needs assessments, establish measurable goals and objectives, and implement and evaluate research-based prevention programs. NCLB expanded these principles to emphasize accountability in education. Schools were to achieve five specific goals: (1) achievement in reading and math; (2) English mastery for students with low proficiency; (3) recruitment and training of highly qualified teachers; (4) establishment of school environments that are drug and violence free; and (5) graduation of all students. School districts received a variety of grants to help them achieve these goals. To assist school districts, a list of authorized activities was prepared and provided to all grantees. It included some programs that had previously been listed in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, such as character education and peer mediation. The list did not include some programs that had previously been recommended, including Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.). Added to the list of approved activities were school resource officers, drug testing, locker searches, and alternative education programs. The list did not identify specific curricula. A review of schools’ responses to NCLB found that only 33% had implemented evidence-based curricula. This number does include some very large districts, however; thus 45% of students had been reached by this effort. The biggest barrier was funding, as school districts insist NCLB is underfunded. During the presidential administration of George W. Bush, student drug testing was emphasized, but many school districts did not implement it because it was too costly. Under NCLB, students enrolled in a school labeled “persistently dangerous” had the right to transfer to a safer school in the district. Although this sounded like a good idea, it gave schools an additional incentive to underreport school crime and violence. Part of the impetus behind NCLB, which was passed during President George W. Bush’s administration and was generally considered a bipartisan effort, was the fear that the United States was lagging behind in international comparisons

No Child Left Behind Act

of student performance. Some civil libertarians even praised NCLB for its focus on poor students, students of color, and those with limited English proficiency. Critics contended that instead of ensuring accountability and high-quality education, the act should be renamed “No Child Left Untested,” because it placed far too much emphasis on high-stakes testing. Given that the United States has the most inequitable education system in the industrialized world, where many students attempt to learn in crumbling classrooms with outdated textbooks, the focus on testing means resources cannot be allocated to other necessary areas. Instead, schools are “dumbing down” their curricula, teaching to the test and not for critical thinking, and reducing students’ opportunities in the President George W. Bush discusses the No Child arts, physical education, and other Left Behind Act (2002) at Logan High School in La areas of interest so that they can betCrosse, Wisconsin, on May 8, 2002. (The White House) ter prepare students to pass standardized tests. Schools that do not make adequately yearly progress (AYP) are labeled as failing and receive less funding. This capitalist model might work well in other institutions, but in education critics contend it has resulted in the removal of funding from the schools that need it most. By spring 2006, more than 10,000 schools had been placed on the “needs improvement” list. Schools that miss AYP for four years are required to either replace all school staff related to the failure, put in place a new curriculum, decrease management authority of the school, appoint outside experts to advise them on the running of the school, extend either the school year or the school day, or restructure the internal organization of the school. After five years of failing to meet AYP, districts are required to either reopen as a charter school, replace all or most of their staff, contract with a private entity to run the school, institute other significant and approved governance and staffing changes, or turn over operation of the school to the state. Critics maintain that NCLB is simply a tool of conservatives in their effort to dismantle public education.

319

320

No Child Left Behind Act

Additionally, the emphasis on test scores has created incentives for schools to rid themselves of students who are not performing well or are otherwise problematic. Suspensions and expulsions have risen dramatically since 1999, and critics contend NCLB is one of the reasons. Young men of color—in particular, African American males—have been disproportionately impacted. by these trends. A 2006 study by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University found that NCLB had not improved reading or math achievement, nor had it narrowed the achievement gap. While campaigning for the presidency, Barack Obama criticized NCLB and its emphasis on testing. Yet critics contend that his administration’s plan is virtually the same. Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan agreed to get rid of AYP, but will replace it with some other form of accountability program. The Obama plan sets a deadline of 2020 for all students to be on a path for college and career readiness. While supporters like the fact that the Obama plan includes some provisions for funding arts and other curricula, it includes the controversial notion that teacher pay should be tied to student performance. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Darling-Hammond, L. (2007, May 21). Evaluating “No Child Left Behind.” The Nation. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from http://www.thenation.com/article/ evaluating-no-child-left-behind?page=0,0 Higpen, D. (2009, December 17). Rethinking school discipline. The Huffington Post. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-e -thigpen/rethinking-school-discipl_b_395715.html Karp, S. (2006, Spring). Band-aids or bulldozers. Rethinking Schools. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/ bushplan/band203.shtml Lee, J. (2006, June). Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth look into national and state reading and math outcome trends. The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/esea/ nclb_naep_lee.pdf Miner, B. (2006, Spring). Why the right hates public education. Rethinking Schools. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/ special_reports/bushplan/righPRO.shtml No Child Left Behind Act: http://ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html Strauss, V. (2010, March 13). Obama and NCLB: The good—and very bad— news. Washington Post. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from http://voices.washington post.com/answer-sheet/education-secretary-duncan/obama-and-nclb-the-good— and-v.html

Northern Illinois University Shooting

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). No Child Left Behind: A parents’ guide. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from http://ed.gov/parents/academic/involve/ nclbguide/parentsguide.pdf

Northern Illinois University Shooting On February 14, 2008, a lone gunman made his way into an oceanography class at Northern Illinois University (NIU) and began shooting. The killer, Steven Kazmierczak, had completed an undergraduate degree and taken graduate courses in sociology from NIU. On the day of the shooting, the 27-year-old killed five students and wounded 16 others before killing himself. The Valentine’s Day tragedy at NIU is considered to be one of the deadliest university shootings in U.S. history, ranking behind only the Virginia Tech massacre, the University of Texas Clock Tower shooting, and the library massacre at California State University, Fullerton. As in other cases of mass murder, authorities soon learned that the perpetrator had a long history of mental illness. According to many accounts, Steven Kazmierczak’s mental problems began long before his involvement in the NIU shootings. In fact, these problems can be traced as far back as his days as a high school student. As a teenager, Steven’s mental illness was so extreme that his parents placed him in a psychiatric treatment center. Years later, a former employee of the treatment center recalled that Kazmierczak refused to take his medication and engaged in self-mutilation while at the facility. Ironically, as a graduate student at NIU, Kazmierczak would one day coauthor an academic paper related to self-mutilation. In spite of having a history of mental problems that required hospitalization, he avoided identifying himself with being mentally ill. Some believe, in retrospect, that Kazmierczak’s failure to acknowledge his mental illness may have been a significant part of the problem. While it is true that Kazmierczak had been treated for various mental illnesses, he was successful and even “revered” by some faculty members during his time as a student at NIU. Many faculty members and fellow students found him to be very easy to converse with and affable. He even earned the prestigious Dean’s award while pursuing his degree in sociology. Despite Kazmierczak’s success at NIU, however, he did possess at least a few idiosyncrasies. In hindsight, these quirks may have been red flags that he had a dark side that was not displayed to his professors. According to one source, for example, Kazmierczak had an infatuation with notorious figures, such as Adolph Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer. When he was not studying, Kazmierczak also spent much of his free time playing violent video games and watching horror films. Nevertheless, Kazmierczak was an exceptional

321

322

Northern Illinois University Shooting

student while at NIU. He excelled in his classes, tutored other students, and was even able to find a girlfriend. One can only wonder why Kazmierczak decided to stage his attack at NIU. By many accounts, he was able to thrive during his time at the university, despite his severe psychological problems. In fact, it is widely believed that Kazmierczak was able to function without any type of psychiatric drugs while he was a student at NIU. It was only after he transferred to another school, the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, that he began to unravel. Perhaps the stress of a new place was simply too much for him. Kazmierczak, after all, was described by many as being extremely anxious and obsessive–compulsive. Shortly after moving, he developed an obsession with guns and made frequent trips to the firing range. Also, in 2007, after the horrific Virginia Tech shootings, Kazmierczak is reported to have stated that he admired the manner in which the attack was conducted. He also spoke admiringly about the teenagers responsible for the Columbine High School shootings. Kazmierczak had a brief stint as a correctional officer after leaving NIU, though it proved to be a very short-lived occupational endeavor. In less than three weeks, he simply quit reporting to work and effectively ended his employment with the prison agency. His personal life also began to suffer. Even though he was living with his on-and-off-again girlfriend, evidence indicates that Kazmierczak began having promiscuous sexual relationships with women he met off the Internet. To cope with his problems, Kazmierczak eventually sought out the services of a mental health professional and was prescribed Prozac. He later quit taking the drug because he was afraid it might make him overweight or give him acne. His discontinuation of his medication did little to help his bizarre behavior and may have exacerbated the problems. Kazmierczak began to act strangely toward his family members. For example, on the Christmas before the NIU shooting, Steven gave his older sister a box of coal as a gift. In spite of the many warning signs, Kazmierczak’s behavior went largely ignored. He was able to obtain a state police-issued firearms owner’s card and purchased three pistols and one shotgun; he would later use these weapons during the NIU shootings. In a bizarre coincidence, Kazmierczak also bought handgun accessories from the same online gun dealer who sold a weapon to the Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho. Days before the attack, Kazmierczak began to act especially mysteriously. Although he did not leave behind a suicide note, he sent goodbye presents, including expensive jewelry, to his girlfriend. He also deleted his email accounts and removed both the SIM card from his cell phone and the hard drive from his computer. In retrospect, it was clear that the killer was making his final preparations before the attack.

Northern Illinois University Shooting

At approximately three o’clock in the afternoon on Valentine’s Day, Kazmierczak entered a large lecture hall at NIU. He is said to have paused briefly before opening fire with a sawed-off shotgun on students sitting in the first row. Kazmierczak emptied the chamber of his shotgun and then reloaded. In total, he fired six shots from his shotgun and 48 shots from three pistols. Many of the victims were killed at point-blank range. Kazmierczak’s last bullet was for himself. He committed suicide immediately after his attack on the large group of students. In this respect, his behavior was not unusual, as some mass murderers kill themselves after completing their attacks. Also, Kazmierczak, like many mass murderers, had a severe mental disorder. While he may not have been legally insane, Kazmierczak nevertheless had a long history of anxiety and personality disorders. Following the NIU attacks, students assembled six white crosses outside of the crime scene. Each of five crosses had the name of a student who had died in the NIU shootings. The final cross bore no name: Kazmierczak’s. Robert Worley Further Reading Davey, M. (2008, February 16). Campus shooting spree: Illinois college gunman was “revered” by faculty: Gunman stopped taking medication before rampage. New York Times, p. A1. Heher, A., & C. Rousseau (2008, February 7). Disparate views emerge about killer: Some say student unstable, others recall him as timid. Houston Chronicle, p. 7A. Holmes, R., & Holmes, S. (2001). Mass murder in the United States. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Holmes, R., & Holmes, S. (2009). Profiling violent crimes: An investigative tool (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tanner, L. (2008, February 7). Role of drugs debated in killings: Experts can’t agree what set off graduate student’s murderous attack. Houston Chronicle, p. 7A. Thomas, J., Leaf, M., Kazmierczak, S., & Stone, J. (2006). Self injury in correctional settings: “Pathology” of prisons or of prisoners? Criminology and Public Policy, 5(1), 193–202. Vann, D. (2008, August). Portrait of the school shooter as a young man. Esquire. Retrieved from http://www.esquire.com/features/steven-kazmierczak-0808 Vu, N. (2008, April 6). Fate of shooting site divides campus. South Florida SunSentinel, p. 6A.

323

324

Northwestern High School Sex Scandal

Northwestern High School Sex Scandal On September 16, 2006, Antwain Easterling, the 18-year-old star of Northwestern High’s football team, had sex with a 14-year-old girl on the floor of a bathroom in the school. By all accounts, the girl—who was an honor student and band member— consented to the sexual intercourse. Nevertheless, given her age, the act was considered statutory rape. Two other males were arrested with Easterling for lewd and lascivious behavior. Another man, Vincent Shannon Jefferson, was also arrested for statutory rape. Jefferson was 24 years old, and the same girl had said she had sex with him off the school grounds. The incident might have ended there, but it erupted into scandal when it became clear that school officials knew about the event but covered it up so that Easterling could play in the football state title game, which Northwestern won. Easterling, who had a baby daughter from a different relationship, had already received scholarship offers from Florida, Miami, Rutgers, Wisconsin, and Nebraska. School officials were told about the incident in October 2006. The girl’s mother spoke to a guidance counselor and two teachers, and the guidance counselor told the school’s principal and two assistant principals. The girl’s mother said that Principal Dwight Bernard assured her that he would call the police, but he did not. She contacted the police herself on December 5, which prompted Easterling’s arrest. He should have been suspended for 10 days, according to Miami-Dade School Board policy. He was not, nor did he ever receive any sanction from the school. Easterling actually played in the state championship game while out on $7,500 bond. In June 2006, a grand jury released a document showing that at least 17 school employees knew about the incident. Given the scandal, Easterling had to settle for a lesser-known college. He began playing football for the University of Southern Mississippi in fall 2007. The girl involved in the incident twice attempted suicide and was institutionalized. Bernard was indicted on two charges of third-degree felony official misconduct stemming from a report he wrote about the incident that the grand jury called “riddled with lies.” During the trial, Bernard claimed he did not contact police because he did not want to report a false allegation. When the trial concluded in April 2010, Bernard was acquitted on all charges. Bernard had been fired from his position at Northwestern. A number of other teachers who knew about the incident were fired as well. Athletic Director Gregory Killings resigned from his position in July 2007, after 24 years at the school. Coach Roland Smith and his entire coaching staff were fired. A grand jury report also found that the school district had interfered with the police investigation of the incident and that then-Miami Dade Superintendent Rudy Crew was aware that Easterling had been arrested, yet approved of allowing him to play in the state championship game. In July 2007, Superintendent Crew was considering

Northwestern High School Sex Scandal

canceling the entire 2007 football season. The community, long known as tremendous supporters of the team, was outraged. As the season approached, Crew changed his mind, perhaps partly because the team had been ranked first in the nation by Rise magazine. They went on to an undefeated season and won another state title. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Finley, P., Finley, L., & Fountain, J. (2008). Sports scandals. Westport, CT: Praeger. Football team faces suspension over sex scandal. (2007, July 11). NBC Sports. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/19709971/ Navarro, M. (2006, December 8). Easterling charged with sex crime. Miami Herald. Retrieved July 11, 2007, from LexisNexis Academic database. Ovalle, D. (2010, April 30). Ex-Northwestern High principal Dwight Bernard not guilty in sex scandal. Miami Herald. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from http:// www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/30/1607288/ex-northwestern-high-principal .html Powell, R. (2007, September 14). Sex scandals, stadium sponsors, and national TV. Slate. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from http://www.slate.com/id/2173804

325

This page intentionally left blank

Encyclopedia of School Crime and Violence

This page intentionally left blank

Encyclopedia of School Crime and Violence O–Z VOLUME 2

Laura L. Finley, Editor Foreword by Evelyn Ang

Copyright 2011 by Laura L. Finley All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Encyclopedia of school crime and violence / Laura L. Finley, editor ; foreword by Evelyn Ang. v. ; cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978–0–313–36238–5 (hard copy : alk. paper) — ISBN 978–0–313–36239–2 (ebook) 1. Students–Crimes against–United States–Encyclopedias. 2. School violence–United States– Encyclopedias. I. Finley, Laura L. HV6250.4.S78E53 2011 371.70 8097303—dc22 2011009812 ISBN: 978–0–313–36238–5 EISBN: 978–0–313–36239–2 15 14 13 12 11

1 2 3 4 5

This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an eBook. Visit www.abc-clio.com for details. ABC-CLIO, LLC 130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911 Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911 This book is printed on acid-free paper Manufactured in the United States of America

Contents

Alphabetical List of Entries, vii Topical List of Entries, xiii Foreword by Evelyn Ang, xvii Preface, xxiii Acknowledgments, xxv Timeline of Significant Events Related to School Crime and Violence, xxvii The Encyclopedia, 1 Discussion Questions, 547 Extension Activities Related to School and Campus Crime and Violence, 549 Appendix 1: Important Federal Legislation Related to School and Campus Crime and Violence, 551 Appendix 2: Primary Source Documents: Sample Legislation: K–12 Public Schools, 553 Appendix 3: Primary Source Documents: Sample Legislation: Colleges and Universities, 633 Appendix 4: U.S. Supreme Court Cases Related to School and Campus Crime and Violence, 643 Appendix 5: U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Relevant to School Crime and Violence, 647 Recommended Films About School and Campus Crime and Violence, 659

v

vi

Contents

Recommended Resources, 665 Index, 677 About the Editor and Contributors, 687

Alphabetical List of Entries

Biological Theories Bishop, Amy Board of Ed. of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls Bosse, Sebastian Bowling for Columbine Brazill, Nathaniel Brewer, Michael Bullycide Bullying, College Bullying, High School Bullying Laws

A Abuse and Crime and Violence ADD/ADHD Adult Trials for Juveniles Africa and School Crime and Violence Alcohol and School Crime and Violence American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Amnesty International Anger Management Anonymous Tip Lines Arts-Based Programs Asia and School Crime and Violence Athletes and Crime and Violence, College Athletes and Crime and Violence, High School Athletes and Violence Prevention Auvinen, Pekka-Eric

C Canada and School Crime and Violence Carneal, Michael Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Central Asia Institute (CAI) Choice Theories Clery Act Columbine High School Massacre Comprehensive Crime Control Act Conflict Resolution/Peer Mediation Conflict Theories Control Theories

B Bath, Michigan, School Bombing Baylor College Basketball Murder Case Beslan School Hostage Crisis Bias, Len Big Brothers Big Sisters

vii

viii

Alphabetical List of Entries

Coon, Asa Corporal Punishment Crime and Violence in Private Secondary Schools Crime Stoppers Cyber-offenses, College Cyber-offenses, High School D Dann, Laurie Dating Violence, College Dating Violence, High School Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine Attack on Ma’alot School Dhein, Alaa Abu Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancements and Leadership Through Alliances (DELTA) Program Do Something Dress Codes Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) Drug Offenses, College Drug Offenses, High School Drug Testing Duke University Lacrosse Team Sexual Assault Case E Educational Programs and Training, College Educational Programs and Training, High School Elementary Schools and Crime and Violence Elephant Emergency Response Plans

European Union and School Crime and Violence Expect Respect F Fear of School Crime and Violence Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Fiction and School Crime and Violence Flores, Robert Free Speech G Gambling Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) Gangs and School Crime and Violence Gender and School Crime and Violence, College Gender and School Crime and Violence, High School Gender-Related Theories Gill, Kimveer Glen Ridge, New Jersey, Rape Incident Goss v. Lopez Gun Control Legislation H Hamilton, Thomas Hamilton Fish Institute Hate Crimes, College Hazing, College Hazing, High School Hazing Laws Honor Codes Houston, Eric Human Rights Education Human Rights Watch

Alphabetical List of Entries

I In loco parentis Integrated Theories J Jeremy Journals Devoted to School Crime and Violence K Kent State National Guard Shootings King, Lawrence Kinkel, Kip Krestchmer, Tim L Labeling Theories La Salle University Sex Scandal and Cover-up Latin America and School Crime and Violence Le´pine, Marc Lo, Wayne Loukaitis, Barry Lu, Gang

Moral Panics and High School Crime and Violence Movies and School Crime and Violence Music and School Crime and Violence Muslims and School Crime and Violence N National School Safety Center National Threat Assessment Center National Youth Survey National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center Natural Born Killers New Jersey v. T.L.O. No Child Left Behind Act Northern Illinois University Shooting Northwestern High School Sex Scandal O Odighizuwa, Peter Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Ophelia Project Owens, Dedrick

M Manson, Marilyn Mental Illness and School Crime and Violence Mentoring Metal Detectors Middle East and School Crime and Violence Middle Schools and Crime and Violence Monitoring the Future Survey Moral Panics and Campus Crime and Violence

P Parens patriae Parents and School Crime and Violence Peace and Justice Studies Association Peace Education, College Peace Education, High School Pennington, Douglas Police and Surveillance, College Police and Surveillance, High School Policies and Campus Violence Laws

ix

x

Alphabetical List of Entries

Poulin, Robert Prescription Drugs and School Crime and Violence Prince, Phoebe Professor-Perpetrated Crime and Violence Property Crimes, College Property Crimes, High School Public Health Approach Punitive Responses, College Purdy, Patrick R Race and School Crime and Violence Ramsey, Evan Religion and High School Crime and Violence Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP) Restorative Justice Roberts, Charles Rural School Violence S Saari, Matti Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act Safe Schools/GLSEN Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding Save the Children School Crime and School Climate, College School Crime and School Climate, High School School Crime Victimization Survey School-to-Prison Pipeline Search and Seizure, High School Security on Campus, Inc. Sexual Assault Crimes, College

Sexual Assault Crimes, High School Sexual Harassment Sexual Orientation and School Crime and Violence, College Sexual Orientation and School Crime and Violence, High School Social Learning Theories Social Networking Social Structure Theories Solomon, T. J. South America and School Crime and Violence Southern Poverty Law Center Spencer, Brenda Spur Posse Steinha¨user, Robert Stop Bullying Now Suburban School Violence Suicide, College Suicide, High School Systemic/Structural Violence, College Systemic/Structural Violence, High School T Teacher-Perpetrated Crime and Violence, High School Technological Responses, High School Technology and Campus Crime and Violence Teen Courts Tinker v. Des Moines School District Treacy, Wayne U United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Justice

Alphabetical List of Entries

V Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton Victimless Offenses, College Victimless Offenses, High School Video Games Violent Nonsexual Crimes, College Violent Nonsexual Crimes, High School Virginia Tech Massacre W Weise, Jeff

Whitman, Charles Wimberley, Teah Woodham, Luke Wurst, Andrew Y Youth Activism Youth Crime Watch of America Z Zero-Tolerance Laws

xi

This page intentionally left blank

Topical List of Entries

Kinkel, Kip Kretschmer, Tim La Salle University Sex Scandal and Cover-up Le´pine, Marc Lo, Wayne Loukaitis, Barry Lu, Gang Northern Illinois University Shooting Northwestern High School Sex Scandal Odighizuwa, Peter Owens, Dedrick Pennington, Douglas Poulin, Robert Prince, Phoebe Purdy, Patrick Ramsey, Evan Roberts, Charles Saari, Matti Solomon, T. J. Spencer, Brenda Spur Posse Steinha¨user, Robert Treacy, Wayne Virginia Tech Massacre Weise, Jeff Whitman, Charles Wimberley, Teah

Case Studies Auvinen, Pekka-Eric Bath, Michigan, School Bombing Baylor College Basketball Murder Case Beslan School Hostage Crisis Bias, Len Bishop, Amy Bosse, Sebastian Brazill, Nathaniel Brewer, Michael Carneal, Michael Columbine High School Massacre Coon, Asa Dann, Laurie Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine Attack on Ma’alot School Dhein, Alaa Abu Duke University Lacrosse Team Sexual Assault Case Flores, Robert Gill, Kimveer Glen Ridge, New Jersey, Rape Incident Hamilton, Thomas Houston, Eric Kent State National Guard Shootings King, Lawrence

xiii

xiv

Topical List of Entries

Woodham, Luke Wurst, Andrew Correlates Abuse and Crime and Violence ADD/ADHD Alcohol and School Crime and Violence Fear of School Crime and Violence Free Speech Mental Illness and School Crime and Violence Muslims and School Crime and Violence Parents and School Crime and Violence Prescription Drugs and School Crime and Violence School Crime and School Climate, College School Crime and School Climate, High School Social Networking Technology and Campus Crime and Violence Video Games Court Cases Board of Ed. of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education Goss v. Lopez New Jersey v. T.L.O. Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding Tinker v. Des Moines School District Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton

Global Comparison Africa and School Crime and Violence Asia and School Crime and Violence Canada and School Crime and Violence European Union and School Crime and Violence Latin America and School Crime and Violence Middle East and School Crime and Violence South America and School Crime and Violence Measuring Monitoring the Future Survey National Youth Survey School Crime Victimization Survey Media Bowling for Columbine Elephant Fiction and School Crime and Violence Jeremy Journals Devoted to School Crime and Violence Manson, Marilyn Moral Panics and Campus Crime and Violence Moral Panics and High School Crime and Violence Movies and School Crime and Violence Music and School Crime and Violence Natural Born Killers

Topical List of Entries

Organizations American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Amnesty International Big Brothers Big Sisters Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Central Asia Institute (CAI) Crime Stoppers Do Something Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Hamilton Fish Institute Human Rights Watch National School Safety Center National Threat Assessment Center National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Ophelia Project Peace and Justice Studies Association Safe Schools/GLSEN Save the Children Security on Campus, Inc. Southern Poverty Law Center Stop Bullying Now United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Justice Youth Crime Watch of America Prevention Athletes and Violence Prevention Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancements and Leadership Through Alliances (DELTA) Program Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)

Educational Programs and Training, College Educational Programs and Training, High School Expect Respect Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) Honor Codes Human Rights Education Mentoring Peace Education, College Peace Education, High School Responses Adult Trials for Juveniles Anger Management Anonymous Tip Lines Arts-Based Programs Bullying Laws Clery Act Comprehensive Crime Control Act Conflict Resolution/Peer Mediation Corporal Punishment Dress Codes Drug Testing Emergency Response Plans Gun Control Legislation Hazing Laws In loco parentis Metal Detectors No Child Left Behind Act Parens patriae Police and Surveillance, College Police and Surveillance, High School Policies and Campus Violence Laws Public Health Approach Punitive Responses, College Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP)

xv

xvi

Topical List of Entries

Restorative Justice Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act School-to-Prison Pipeline Search and Seizure, High School Technological Responses, High School Technology and Campus Crime and Violence Teen Courts Youth Activism Zero-Tolerance Laws Theory Biological Theories Choice Theories Conflict Theories Control Theories Gender-Related Theories Integrated Theories Labeling Theories Social Learning Theories Social Structure Theories Types of Crime/Violence Athletes and Crime and Violence, College Athletes and Crime and Violence, High School Bullycide Bullying, College Bullying, High School Crime and Violence in Private Secondary Schools Cyber-offenses, College Cyber-offenses, High School Dating Violence, College Dating Violence, High School Drug Offenses, College Drug Offenses, High School

Elementary Schools and Crime and Violence Gambling Gangs and School Crime and Violence Gender and School Crime and Violence, College Gender and School Crime and Violence, High School Hate Crimes, College Hazing, College Hazing, High School Middle Schools and Crime and Violence Professor-Perpetrated Crime and Violence Property Crimes, College Property Crimes, High School Race and School Crime and Violence Religion and High School Crime and Violence Rural School Violence Sexual Assault Crimes, College Sexual Assault Crimes, High School Sexual Harassment Sexual Orientation and School Crime and Violence, College Sexual Orientation and School Crime and Violence, High School Suburban School Violence Suicide, College Suicide, High School Systemic/Structural Violence, College Systemic/Structural Violence, High School Teacher-Perpetrated Crime and Violence, High School Victimless Offenses, College Victimless Offenses, High School Violent Nonsexual Crimes, College Violent Nonsexual Crimes, High School

O Odighizuwa, Peter On January 16, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa, a 43-year-old immigrant from Nigeria who had flunked out of law school, killed three and wounded three others at Appalachian School of Law. Odighizuwa had actually flunked out of the school once before, and just before the shooting he had been notified that he had flunked out again. After discussing his academic problems with professor Dale Rubin in the morning, Odighizuwa went home, but he returned to the school at approximately 1:00 P.M. with a .380 ACP semi-automatic handgun. He proceeded to the offices of Dean Anthony Sutin, a former acting Assistant Attorney General, and Professor Thomas Blackwell, shooting both at point-blank range. He also killed student Angela Dales and wounded three other students. Odighizuwa then fled the building, whereupon several students tackled and disarmed him. Odighizuwa came to the United States in 1980. He worked for several years as a bus driver and a factory clerk in Portland, Oregon, then moved to Ohio. He enrolled briefly at Ohio State University, then transferred to Central State University, where he studied math. Odighizuwa had developed an interest in law, however, and says he wanted to practice public interest law so that he could help persons with disabilities and immigrants like him. He began applying to law schools and was accepted at Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia. Despite never having heard of the school before, Odighizuwa enrolled and moved there with his wife and four children. He found law school to be difficult academically and had a hard time fitting in. Odighizuwa claims that other students made fun of him and would leave the room when he entered.

327

328

Odighizuwa, Peter

Odighizuwa had purchased a pistol several months before the shooting after finding an unfired bullet outside his door. He claims he was targeting individuals who were particularly mean to him. Odighizuwa has been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, but he was found incompetent to stand trial for murder in January 2002. He faced a death sentence. In the end, he pleaded guilty to avoid being executed and is serving three life sentences and an additional 28 years without the chance of parole. In an interview with the Associated Press, Odighizuwa claimed that he thinks of the incident often, but the details are murky. He cannot explain why he committed his crime, although he said he sometimes feels as though he is God exorcising demons. He also claims he got C grades and did not flunk out. Several lawsuits have been filed against the law school in the wake of the shootings. The family of victim Angela Dales and three students who survived claim that school officials knew that Odighizuwa had a history of spousal abuse and should have known he posed a threat. Further, their suit contends that Odighizuwa was allowed to re-enroll in the law school after flunking out because the administration desperately needed to show some diversity and he was one of only a few black students. A diverse campus was part of the criteria for the accreditation the school was seeking. The law school’s administration has denied these claims. In his interview with the Associated Press, Odighizuwa scoffed at the lawsuits, arguing there was no way the school could have known what he would do, and stating that he was not a violent person. His paranoia was evident, though, as he spoke of involvement with the FBI, CIA, and KGB. After the shooting, school administrators issued a statement saying they were shocked and saddened by the crime. Classes were canceled for the rest of the week. Gun enthusiasts used the opportunity to note that it was an armed student who was able to intervene before the shooting got even worse. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Associated Press. (2002, January 17). Law students tackled gunman, held him down until police arrived. Fox News. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,43254,00.html Grundy, V. (2002, January 17). Suspect in law school slaying arraigned. CNN. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/16/ law.school.shooting/ Grundy, V. (2003, September 27). Students recount law school shooting. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://www.legaled.com/shooting.htm Kahn, C. (2004, June 11). Appalachian School of Law killer still haunted by paranoia, delusions. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from http://www.healthyplace.com/ thought-disorders/articles/appalachian-school-of-law-killer-still-hauntedby-paranoia-delusions/menu-id-64/

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) In 1974, Congress established the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) as part of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. It is considered part of the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Its mission is as follows: The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) provides national leadership, coordination, and resources to prevent and respond to juvenile delinquency and victimization. OJJDP supports states and communities in their efforts to develop and implement effective and coordinated prevention and intervention programs and to improve the juvenile justice system so that it protects public safety, holds offenders accountable, and provides treatment and rehabilitative services tailored to the needs of juveniles and their families. OJJDP is charged with improving juvenile justice policies and practices, conducting research, and providing funding for research and programs addressing topics relevant to juvenile crime and violence, responses to them, and prevention programs. Specific areas of focus include, but are not limited to, gang reduction and prevention, Internet crimes, girls’ delinquency, child abduction, commercial sexual exploitation of children, and underage drinking. The OJJDP website includes annual reports from each fiscal year, which detail the office’s activities and expenditures. Currently available are reports for the years 1996–2008. Additionally, the website offers a wealth of information through a topically organized list and its searchable database. Information available includes reports, programs, funding, events, and other resources. Current publications include the following: • Causes and Correlates of Girls’ Delinquency • Highlights of the 2008 National Youth Gang Survey • Youth’s Needs and Services: Findings from the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement • Introduction to the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement • Girls’ Delinquency in Focus Fact Sheet • Juveniles in Residential Placement: 1997–2008 The statistics link provides links to bulletins on juvenile arrests, juvenile sex crimes against minors, and a comprehensive survey of children’s exposure to violence. Interested persons can review demographic data about juvenile offenders

329

330

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

and victims, the juvenile justice system (at all phases), and juveniles in corrections. The events link provides information about training and conferences occurring throughout the United States. OJJDP also offers training and technical assistance for those involved in responding to juvenile violence or in prevention programs. Training and technical assistance might include conducting needs assessments, strategic planning, team building and collaboration, staff development, and program evaluation. The site also features a model program guide. Under the subtopic of schools, the OJJDP site provides information about bullying, dropout and expulsion, school involvement, school safety, and truancy.

OJJDP is a clearinghouse of information for anyone interested in or involved in juvenile justice. The agency lists the following milestones in its history:

1974 • Act signed into law • Created the Formula Grants program • Established the separation requirement • Established the deinstitutionalization of status offenders (DSO) requirement 1977 • Increased and expanded DSO and separation requirements • Emphasized prevention and treatment 1980 • Established jail removal requirements 1984 • Enhanced and amended jail removal requirements 1988 • Addressed disproportionate minority confinement (DMC) as a requirement 1992 • Amended the DSO, jail removal, and separation requirements • Elevated DMC to a core requirement • Established the Title V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Grants Program (Title V)

Ophelia Project

• Established new programs to address gender bias • Emphasized prevention and treatment, family strengthening, graduated sanctions, and risk-need assessments

2002 • Broadened the scope of the DMC core requirement from “disproportionate minority confinement” to “disproportionate minority contact”

• Consolidated seven previously independent programs into a single Part C prevention block grant

• Created a new Part D, authorizing research, training and technical assistance, and information dissemination

• Added Part E, authorizing grants for new initiatives and programs • Reauthorized Title V • Required states to give funding priorities of their formula and block grant allocations to evidence-based programs

• Reauthorized the Title II Formula Grants Program • Revised the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants program, which is now called the Juvenile Accountability Block Grants program (as part of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act)

Laura L. Finley Further Reading Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/

Ophelia Project In recent years, experts in school crime and violence have begun to pay more attention to bullying and have focused on the unique forms it may take. In addition to cyberbullying, focus has been directed toward girl-on-girl bullying. In contrast to the traditional forms of bullying more often perpetrated by boys against boys, girls may use more subtle forms, including gossip, spreading of rumors, and exclusion. Experts call this approach “relational aggression.” The Ophelia Project, based in Erie, Pennsylvania, is an organization that serves youth and adults who have been affected by relational aggression. Using the latest and best research on the topic, and headed by Dr. Charisse Nixon, author of Girl Wars: 12 Strategies That Will End Female Bullying, group members devise tools and strategies to assist those

331

332

Ophelia Project

Two girls exclude and gossip about a third girl. Girls often practice relational aggression when bullying other girls. Bully tactics include gossiping, exclusion, and spreading rumors. (Monkey Business Images/Dreamstime.com)

who have been victimized. They also help prevent relational aggression through training, conferences, consultation, and curricula. Most of these materials are available on Ophelia Project’s website (www.opheliaproject.org). The Ophelia Project’s curriculum for girls, “It Has a Name: Relational Aggression,” is available for five age levels, from kindergarten through high school. It describes what relational aggression is, addresses cyberbullying, and seeks to help girls develop prosocial norms. Curricula are also available for parents, for mentors, and for college students, and specific prevention curricula have been developed for young girls. Parents can download basic communication tips, as well as access links to additional information on bullying, empowering girls, and much more. For teachers, the Ophelia Project offers articles and activities that can be downloaded for free as well as additional web links. A number of downloadable items for teens and links for more information are available as well. Finally, the website provides links and downloadable resources related to community action. Multimedia packages are available for purchase, too. School districts can purchase assessment tools designed to assist them in creating a safe school climate

Owens, Dedrick

(CASS: Creating a Safe School). One evaluation of the CASS program found it to have reduced relational aggression by 23% in girls and 10% in boys. The Ophelia Project has also partnered with Penn State—Erie to create the Ophelia Institute, which is still in development. When complete, it will conduct research, develop and disseminate educational materials (including web-based instructional tools), and provide workshops and training for educators and parents. Testimonials credit the Ophelia Project with providing the appropriate language with which to discuss relational aggression with youth, and with identifying the importance of bystanders. Commenters have also highlighted the assistance available through the informative and interactive workshops. Many educators indicate that training from the Ophelia Project has helped them transform their classrooms and even their schools into safer places for students. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Ophelia Project: http://www.opheliaproject.org/main/index.htm Simmons, R. (2002). Odd girl out: The hidden culture of aggression in girls. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Owens, Dedrick On February 29, 2000, Kayla Rolland was in her first-grade classroom at Theo J. Buell Elementary School in Mount Morris Township, Michigan, clearing her desk before going to computer class. Most of her classmates were already lined up in the hallway, along with their teacher, Alicia Judd. Kayla and classmate six-yearold Dedrick Owens were exchanging words. Some reports state that Kayla yelled at Dedrick for spitting and standing by her desk. All reports agree on what happened next: Dedrick pulled a .32-caliber pistol and pointed it at two other girls in the room. Then he turned to Kayla and said, “I don’t like you!” Some say Kayla responded, “So?” Owens then pulled the trigger, fatally shooting six-year-old Rolland in the chest. When Judd heard the shot, she returned to the classroom and called 911 from her cell phone. Owens put the gun back in his desk and ran into the hall, where he was stopped by school officials. Paramedics arrived on the scene to find Rolland bleeding profusely from her wound. She was transported to Hurley Medical Center, where she was pronounced dead. When Owens left for school that morning, he carried both the Davis .32-caliber semi-automatic handgun and a knife. He had stolen both items from Jamelle James, a 19-year-old tenant in his uncle’s house, where he (Dedrick) lived with his eight-year old brother. Dedrick’s father was in jail for parole violation

333

334

Owens, Dedrick

following a conviction for “intent to distribute” illegal drugs. His mother was also a known drug user and had been evicted from her home. James would ultimately be charged in the Kayla Rolland murder case with involuntary manslaughter, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and gross neglect. Because he was only six years of age, Owens could not be charged with any crime. Nevertheless, many knew that Owens was a troubled child. School officials acknowledge that Owens was previously suspended from school and was regularly held after school for “saying the F word, flipping people off, pinching, and hitting.” Earlier in the school year, he had stabbed a classmate with a pencil. Rolland had also been previously targeted by Owens. It has been reported that the day before her murder, Owens attempted to kiss Rolland, but was rebuffed. Schools officials said in interviews following the shooting that Owens was scheduled to attend anger management classes. Many of these reports are difficult to verify due to Owens’s young age and the laws designed to protect a child’s privacy. The Genesee County prosecutor noted that laws in most states contend that children younger than the age of seven are not capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. Additionally, many news reports failed to name six-year-old Owens as the shooter in Rolland’s case. The fact remains there were many red flags concerning Owens—even on the day of the shooting. On that morning, a student reported that Owens was in possession of the knife. Although the teacher took the knife away from Owens, she failed to send him to the office or report the incident to school administration. A classmate of Rolland and Owens, Chris Boaz, reported to his grandmother that Owens also threatened Boaz’s uncle earlier that morning and said, “Do you want me to take my gun out and shoot you?” Boaz was seven years old when he witnessed the shooting of Rolland; after the event, his mother reported, he did not want to return to school and suffered from fear and anxiety. In an interview with County Sheriff Bill Pickell, Dedric Darnell Owens, the father of Dedrick Owens, stated he knew instantly his son was involved in the Buell Elementary School shooting. “A cold, sickening feeling came over me . . . I knew it was my son that did the shooting,” he said. Pickell asked how Owens could be so sure and Owens stated, “Because of his past violent acts.” Owens went on to say that his son “watched violent movies and TV.” Once Owens asked his son why he fought other children, and his son replied, “Because I hate them.” Rolland’s murder sent shockwaves throughout the United States. How and why could a first-grade squabble end with one six-year-old killing another? This question raised public consciousness and ultimately helped form public policy regarding school violence and gun control in the United States. At the national level, President Bill Clinton, along with gun control proponents, publicly asked questions that were echoed around the country: “How did that child get that gun?” and “Why could the child fire the gun? If we have the technology to put in these

Owens, Dedrick

child safety locks, why don’t we do it?” Immediately, new calls were made for additional gun control legislation at the national level. President Clinton urged Congress to pass legislation before April 20, 2000, the first anniversary of the shooting at Columbine High School. Sociocultural interest in the subjects of violence in schools, the effects of domestic violence and child abuse on children, and the larger political debate concerning Second Amendment rights and gun control also swelled. On April 20, 2000, an article appeared in The New York Times with follow-up on the Rolland case. A spokesman for Tamarla Owens, Dedrick’s mother, had issued a statement on April 19: Owens was enrolled in an unspecified private school in the Flint, Michigan, area. State officials had placed the boy in the school, and the state of Michigan was paying his expenses. Filmmaker Michael Moore brought additional attention to the case in 2000 with his award-winning documentary Bowling for Columbine. In the film, he suggests that Tamarla Owens was a hard-working mother caught up in welfare reform laws that required her to work two jobs. Karen Lindsey Further Reading Cannon, A. (2000a). The youngest shooter. U.S. News & World Report, 128(10), 27. Cannon, A. (2000b). Kayla’s law: Gun control. U.S. News & World Report, 128(11), 39. First grade killing: Who shares the blame? (2000, April 17). Current Events, 99 (23), 3. Lebeskind, K. (2000). Tragedy in Michigan. Editor & Publisher, 133(10), 6 National news briefs: Killer, 6, back in school. (2000, April 20). New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/20/us/national-news-briefskiller-6-back-in-school.html Naughton, K., Thomas, E., & Raymond, J. (2000). Did Kayla have to die? Newsweek. 135(11), 24. Rosenblatt, R. (2000). The killing of Kayla. Time, 155(10), 26. U.S. press outraged. BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/ 662749.stm

335

This page intentionally left blank

P Parens patriae Parens patriae is a Latin term meaning the “parent of the country”; it traditionally refers to the role of the state as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability. Parens patriae is the authority of the state to act in the best interest of a child and provide care and protection equivalent to that of a parent. This term is rooted in English common law and dates back to the chancery courts of England during the Middle Ages. The chancery court’s jurisdiction included the welfare of children in cases involving the guardianship of orphans and gradually expanded to justify the court’s intervention in the lives of family and children. The premises of the chancery courts were that children were under the protective custody of the king, and that the king’s authority extended to children in his role as the father of the country. The evolution of parens patriae in the United States had its beginnings when early juvenile courts began to recognize as important the role of the parent in meeting the physical, emotional, and educational needs to the child. The court, it was thought, had the right to intervene in cases where the parents were unable or unwilling to provide for the child. This doctrine was expanded to address circumstances where the child was at risk for criminal behavior. As a result, a system of rehabilitative treatment programs was developed for youth deemed at risk, with the goal being that they grow up and become productive adults. In this way, the parens patriae model allowed the court to serve as surrogate parents for wayward children. The first juvenile court was established in Chicago in 1899. The goal of this juvenile court was to protect neglected children and rehabilitate delinquent children. Its charge was to use the parens patriae concept to protect the state’s right to officially intervene in the juvenile’s life, especially if the youth was neglected. Under this

337

338

Parens patriae

principle, the state has the power to intervene in cases if the child has not reached full legal capacity. Moreover, the state has the inherent power and the responsibility to provide these protections to children whose natural parents were not providing appropriate care or supervision. This power, which the court recognizes as inherent, has since been strengthened by legislation that defines the scope of child protection within each state. The original juvenile court’s focus was on the child’s welfare, which included dependent, neglected, abused, and delinquent children. In subsequent years, the states have expanded the doctrine of parens patriae to include protections for other members of their citizenry. In Louisiana v. Texas (1900), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the propriety of allowing the state to sue on behalf of its citizenry. In Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. (1907), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that individual states have recourse to the judicial power of the United States to resolve disputes between the states. This evolution of an increasingly broad application of the parens patriae doctrine permits the state to bring an action on behalf of its citizens to protect its sovereign or quasi-sovereign interests. This sovereign interest is the guarantee of the well-being of the state’s citizenry. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized two general categories of quasi-sovereign interests. The first is the protection of the health and well-being, both physically and economically, of the state’s residents in general. The second is the protection of the state’s interest in not being discriminatorily denied its rightful status within the federal system. In deciding whether a state can use the parens patriae doctrine in a specific claim, the Court may look to whether the injury is one that the state might address through its sovereign law-making powers and whether the conduct infringes, either directly or indirectly, on a significant portion of the population, per the ruling in Snapp and Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico (1982). The doctrine of parens patriae was established as a mechanism for the states to act in the best interest of children. When children are considered at risk, the state can step in and act as the parent. Over time, however, this doctrine has been expanded so that the state can act in the best interest of all citizens where the well-being of the state’s citizenry is at stake. Dennis Bulen Further Reading Benekos, P., & Merlo, A. (2004). Controversies in juvenile justice and delinquency. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis. Elsea, K. (1995). The juvenile crime debate: Rehabilitation, punishment, or prevention. Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy, 5(1), 135–146. Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. 206 U.S. 230 (1907). Greenberg, D. (1985). Age, crime, and social explanation. American Journal of Sociology, 9(1), 1–21.

Parents and School Crime and Violence

Nolan, J., & Connolly, M. (1983). Black’s law dictionary (5th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West. Siegel, L., & Welsh, B. (2005). Juvenile delinquency: The core (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, 458 U.S. 592 (1982).

Parents and School Crime and Violence When a major incident of school violence occurs, often the first response is to blame the parents. Parents can, however, be tremendous allies and advocates for their children. If parents are open and available to communicate with young people, many times serious violence can be averted. In some cases, it has been parents who have led the way to important school and community reforms. One of the major challenges for parents is knowing what is happening at school when they are not around. It is imperative that parents communicate with their

Open communication is essential to reduce violence. (Keith Spaulding/Dreamstime.com)

339

340

Parents and School Crime and Violence

children about what is happening at school—not just about academics, but also about social issues. Additionally, parents should maintain regular communication with school districts, checking web-based updates, calling the school and teachers when necessary, and attending school functions. Fortunately, many wonderful resources are available for parents to help them identify warning signs of bullying and other problem behaviors. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has a link on its website that provides information about the frequency, types, warning signs, and effects of bullying. The same site also has tips for what parents can do if their child is being bullied. Specifically, parents are advised not to give up, even if their child begs them not to contact adults, as research suggests the most effective way to stop bullying is adult intervention. Parents should allow the school to set up a meeting involving the parents of the bully, rather than seeking to make those arrangements themselves. It is important that parents keep pressure on schools to ensure victims are being adequately protected. In addition, for parents whose child has endured bullying, the advice is to help the child build his or her self-esteem by joining positive clubs, sports, or other activities. Parents must support those efforts and, in some cases, may need to reach out to help establish them if the victim is particularly socially awkward. If a child appears especially distraught, parents are advised to seek the help of a mental health professional. SAMHSA also offers advice to parents of bullies. First, it is imperative that parents inform their children that they take bullying seriously and that such behavior will not be allowed. Providing positive reinforcement for prosocial behavior in the home and in the community can encourage bullies to make better choices. Above all, parents are discouraged from excusing or justifying bullying. The website operated by Stop Bullying Now (www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov) also has recommendations about what adults can do in situations where children are being bullied. It includes a wealth of information about bullying, warning signs, laws, and interventions across the United States. Additional information is available at the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (http://www .colorado.edu/cspv/publications/factsheets/safeschools/FS-SC09.pdf). Parents can learn about other issues related to school crime and violence, including child abuse, sexual violence, dating violence, and suicide, at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website (http://www.cdc.gov/ ViolencePrevention/index.html). Adults and Children Together Against Violence (http://actagainstviolence .apa.org/) is a resource that features a database of more than 250 journal articles, book chapters, and other publications related to youth violence. Topics for parents

Peace and Justice Studies Association

include anger management, conflict resolution, discipline, media violence, and parenting skills. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Adults and Children Together Against Violence: http://actagainstviolence.apa.org/ Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence Bullying Fact Sheet: http://www .colorado.edu/cspv/publications/factsheets/safeschools/FS-SC09.pdf Parents, grandparents and caregivers. (n.d.). SAMHSA’s National Mental Health and Information Center. Retrieved from http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/ 15plus/parent/ Stop Bullying Now: http://www.stopbullingnow.hrsa.gov. Violence Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/index.html

Peace and Justice Studies Association The Peace and Justice Studies Association (PJSA), a nonprofit organization, was formed in 2001 when the Consortium on Peace Research, Education and Development (COPRED) merged with the Peace Studies Association (PSA). It is devoted to bringing together academics, K–12 educators, and activities to envision a more peaceful world, to share ideas and strategies for peace building, and to work toward social change for social justice. PJSA is the professional organization for scholars in the field of peace and conflict resolution and is the North American affiliate of the International Peace Research Association. Specifically, PJSA’s mission is to create a just and peaceful world through the following activities: • The promotion of peace studies within universities, colleges, and K–12 grade levels • The forging of alliances among educators, students, activists, and other peace practitioners so as to enhance one another’s work on peace, conflict, and nonviolence • The creation and nurturing of alternatives to structures of inequality and injustice, war, and violence through education, research, and action Members share several values and beliefs, including the belief that nonviolent strategies are the most effective way to make social change. Additional shared values and beliefs include, but are not limited to, critical analysis of social structures and institutions, equitable sharing of world resources, lifelong education and

341

342

Peace and Justice Studies Association

community service, innovative and effective pedagogy, and building of collaborations and alliances. PJSA hosts an annual conference in which it educates and honors activists and members; it also hosts a blog on peace-related topics. In 2010, the organization hosted its first Youth Summit. Additionally, PJSA compiles and disseminates the Global Directory of Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution Programs. Members of PJSA receive two publications: The Peace Chronicle and Peace & Change: A Journal of Peace Research. Members can also participate in a listserv to keep up-to-date on the group’s events. In addition, the PJSA website features a job board and links to other peace and justice resources. PJSA partners with a variety of other groups and organizations. In 2005, for example, it entered into a partnership with Bridge Connect Act (BCA) designed to “promote peace and justice through education, research and action and to engage students, faculty, and college and university staff members in international programs focused on peace, justice and other issues of mutual concern.” Members of PJSA institutions receive special consideration for BCA’s programs throughout the world, and BCA will waive the application fee from students involved in PJSA who would like to study abroad in one of BCA’s peace and justice studies programs. Another partnership is with the Higher Education Consortium for Urban Affairs (HECUA). HECUA is a group of 18 colleges, universities, and associated organizations that promote interdisciplinary, community-based learning related to civic engagement and social justice. HECUA has program sites in the United States as well as in Bangladesh, Ecuador, Northern Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Poland. Established in spring 2005, this collaboration allows students the opportunity to participate in experiential learning programs that focus on social change and social justice. Undergraduate students enrolled at PJSA member institutions receive special benefits when they enroll in HECUA study-away programs, including discounted fees. In November 2008, PJSA announced a partnership with the Center for Global eEducation (CGE). CGE is based at Augsburg College (Minneapolis) and offers discounts to individual members and member institutions who want to travel to the Center’s Mexican or Central American locations to study. The Canadian School of Peacebuilding (CSOP) also partners with the PJSA to provide intensive one-week courses on peace building. PeaceVoice is an organization devoted to changing media by offering articles and commentary by peace and justice professionals to newspapers and online news sources; it solicits brief articles from PJSA members and then distributes them to appropriate news sources. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Peace and Justice Studies Association: www.peacejusticestudies.org

Peace Education, College

Peace Education, College Peace education “involves students and educators in a commitment to create a more just and peaceful world order” (Harris & Morrison, 2003, p. 4). It has 10 main goals: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

To appreciate the richness of the concept of peace To address fears To provide information about security To understand war behavior To develop intercultural understanding To provide a “futures” orientation To teach peace as a process To promote positive peace, or peace accompanied by social justice To stimulate a respect for all life To manage conflicts nonviolently

Peace education takes many forms—some more focused on negative peace (the reduction of violent conflict) and others more inclusive. Peace making, or conflict resolution education, involves the learning and utilization of conflict resolution strategies. The narrowest programs focus on student-to-student conflicts, often utilizing peer mediation. In peer mediation, trained students help their peers resolve conflicts. Human rights education is one form of peace education that is intended to address injustices related to political oppression, prejudice, and abuses of civil, political, social, and economic rights. Most human rights education programs take as their basis the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This type of education encourages the eradication of social ills well beyond violent conflict. International education aims to help students better understand the ways states provide for their citizens, in terms of both security and other essential needs. Teachers try to elicit among their students the feeling that we are all global citizens. International education often focuses on globalization and its impact on humanity. At the college level, it might include study-abroad programs. Many peace education programs draw on the work of women’s studies scholars. Such programs emphasize what has been called the three C’s: care, compassion, and connectedness. Environmental education, although traditionally not a main emphasis of peace educators, has received far more attention in recent years. It stresses the need for ecological security and encourages students to reduce waste and limit their consumption. Community-based environmental education is a form of peace education

343

344

Peace Education, College

that enables students to participate in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of educational activities aimed at resolving local environmental concerns that the students themselves have identified. Community-based service, also known as service learning, can be a useful peace education strategy. In higher education, many schools offer peace studies courses, although most often they are embedded in social sciences curricula. The Peace and Justice Studies Association compiles the Global Directory of Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution Programs (available for order from http://www.peacejusticestudies.org/ resources/publications.php). This guide is currently in its seventh edition and features 450 undergraduate, master’s degree, and doctoral programs in more than 40 countries and 38 U.S. states. An online edition is available with up-to-date information. Some universities have established innovative peace education programs on their own. James Madison University, for example, has incorporated peace education into its elementary education program. An innovative approach is to create an entire program based on peace, or what historian Riane Eisler has called “partnership education.” The Peace Education Center at Teacher’s College, Columbia University, trains educators in what it calls a “pedagogy of engagement.” The pedagogy draws from a variety of disciplines and approaches that emphasize inquiry, reflection, and transformation. In 1993, the Human Rights School began at McMaster University. This undergraduate interdisciplinary program offers a 24-credit minor. In contrast, the Lindeman Center for Community Empowerment Through Education at Northern Illinois University is an adult education program through which the university partners with the community to provide a variety of educational sessions. Some programs focus on international human rights law. The International Human Rights Law Clinic (IHRLC) is one of seven clinical programs at Washington College of Law at American University. It provides students with full case responsibility for human rights litigation. Participants work with two types of clients: those seeking asylum and victims of human rights abuses. St. Thomas University in Miami, Florida, has also established an international human rights law program. In the past, human rights or peace education have rarely been part of health or medical training programs. The Harvard School of Public Health has developed a program that includes a course on human rights for public health practitioners. It also offers a health and human rights seminar series, in collaboration with the International Federation of the Red Cross; the Danish Center for Human Rights; the McGill Center on Ethics, Law, and Medicine; the International Commission of Jurists; and the Society of Women Against AIDS in Africa. One concern about peace education courses is that they may focus exclusively on content, or the material that is taught, and pay little attention to the teaching and learning methods used. The use of passive, competitive instructional methods is common in higher education. College classrooms tend to be what Riane Eisler

Peace Education, College

called “dominator structured.” The large lecture hall creates a structure in which the professor or instructor is the “sage on the stage” and the students are sitting in nice, even rows, facing forward. This structure is not ideal for student collaboration. Moreover, students have very little voice in the authority structure of a typical college classroom, as professors generally select the material to be included, the methods of delivery, and the assignments to be used. Given that positive peace addresses the synthesis of many different content areas—history, women’s studies, race and ethnic understanding, environmental awareness, and much more—-their highly specialized training may not adequately equip professors to teach about and work for peace in the most impactful way. As noted previously, another barrier to implementing education about and for peace in higher education is related to the lack of training many professors have in teaching methods. Thus, while those charged with teaching peace education courses specifically or integrating peace education content into their existing courses are likely very capable of teaching about peace, they may not be well trained to use peaceful teaching methods. Because they are under such tremendous pressure to become professionalized, young graduate students also tend to focus most of their time on research and publication, not on learning to teach. Faculty wishing to integrate education about and for peace must overcome these difficult, but not insurmountable barriers. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Eisler, R. (2000). Tomorrow’s children. Boulder, CO: Westview. Finley, L. (2004). Teaching peace in higher education: Overcoming the challenges to addressing structure and methods. Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution, 5(2). Freire, P. (1974). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press. Galtung, J. (1996). Peace by peaceful means: Peace and conflict, development and civilization. London: Sage. Harris, I., & Morrison, M. (2003). Peace education, second edition. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Jacoby, B. 1996. Service learning in higher education: Concepts and practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kleiman, P. (2008). Towards transformation: Conceptions of creativity in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 209–217. Lin, J., Brantmeier, E., & Bruhn, C. (2008). Transforming education for peace. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. McCarthy, C. (2002). I’d rather teach peace. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis. Pepinsky, H. (2006, December). Peacemaking in the classroom. Contemporary Justice Review, 9(4), 427–442.

345

346

Peace Education, High School

Peace Education, High School In 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., asked residents of the United States a prescient, urgent, and timely question: Where do we go from here—chaos or community? Since King’s death, more than 1 million Americans have been killed violently here at home, including tens of thousands of children. Behind these shameful numbers are small individual faces and individuals’ feelings. We must stop this suffering; we must work together to see that the violence against children is stopped, that schools are turned back into places of nurturing and learning, rather than the war zones which some of them have become. We will not be able to deal with the violence in the United States until we learn to deal with the basic ethic of how we resolve disputes and to place an emphasis on peace in the way we relate to one another. On May 16, 1995, a student was arrested at the Fritsche Middle School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for possession of a gun, which was found in her locker. Students, parents, and teachers alike were stunned. The girl had been a straight-A student, who just one day prior had handed an honorary banner to Reverend Desmond Tutu as part of a peace-promoting rally. Upon leaving the rally, the student was assaulted by a fellow student, and allegedly brought the gun to school the next day in self-defense. This was but one of many violent incidents reported in U.S. schools in the last 20 years. What is notable about Fritsche Middle School is its positive and unified response to the incident: The school responded by incorporating peace education into its curriculum in 1996. Peace education refers to a social movement within education that seeks to counter all forms of violence and promote peace. Violence is defined by peace educators as “any physical, psychological or structural action that is dehumanizing or intentionally harms another.” Peace education involves peace-promoting curriculum, alternative teaching structures, and the creation of a nonviolent learning Martin Luther King, Jr., served as a powerful environment. Peace educators seek to leader spreading the message of peace and nonviolent action during the American Civil Rights help students to identify violence in their lives and their surroundings, Movement. (Library of Congress)

Peace Education, High School

to recognize the sources of such violence, and to equip students to demonstrate nonviolent responses to conflict. Furthermore, peace education involves a more cooperative model of learning, moving away from traditional “top-down” approaches of teaching and instead promoting partnerships in learning. Peace education was spawned as a response to a global decline in education and an increase in school violence, which has characterized the period from the 1980s to the present. The purpose of peace education is to counter violence of all forms. Pioneers in peace education, such as Maria Montessori, for whom Montessori Schools were named, believed that failure to recognize the disempowering effects of traditional models of education simply exacerbated the violence in schools. Montessori developed her ideas around peace education in the post–World War II era of the 1950s, calling it “the best way to counteract the hatred of fascism.” The need for peace education has grown ever more pressing with the passage of time. According to the Children’s Defense Fund (1991), children today are exposed to more violence than at any previous time, yet a failure on the part of educators to identify the prevalence of violence in the lives of students limits the influence of peace education. Nonetheless, many schools throughout the United States and around the globe are taking measures to implement peace education. A curriculum that formerly gave mention to violent historical events without making mention of nonviolent conflict resolution is now emphasizing the work and ideas of peace makers, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Leo Tolstoy, David Henry Thoreau, Mother Theresa, Cesar Chavez, Nel Noddings and bell hooks. Today, class discussions in many high schools include issues such as national disarmament, human rights, domestic violence, refugee relocation, economic inequalities, and ecological concerns. Furthermore, many schools—like the Fritsche Middle School in Milwaukee—are experimenting with different classroom approaches that are conducive to partnership and cooperation. Block scheduling is a revised system of class scheduling in which students attend fewer class periods, with each class spanning a longer period of time than the traditional 48-minute periods and each covering an integrative curriculum that incorporates reading, English, mathematics, language arts, social studies, and sciences. After implementing block scheduling, Fritsche Middle School reported improvement in standardized test scores, improved attendance, a decreased number of incident reports, and a drastic increase in community involvement on the part of students. Many different peace education models are being successfully implemented today. A few example suffice to demonstrate their breadth: • Afghan Sister Project at Carolina Friends School: The Carolina Friends School in North Carolina established a partnership with a school in Afghanistan, with children in the two schools becoming pen pals, writing

347

348

Peace Education, High School

journals of their day-to-day life for 10 days and then exchanging the journals to learn about one another’s lives, and making crafts to share with one another. The journal project included sending disposable cameras to Afghanistan, so that the children there could take photographs of their daily lives and send them back to the United States. In turn, U.S. students took photos of their daily lives and sent them to Afghanistan. Along with these international exchanges, the Carolina Friends School invited special guest speakers from Afghanistan to speak in their schools. Extracurricular community events were planned featuring music and food from Afghanistan, and parents, teachers and members of the community came together to learn. High school students hosted fundraising events and raised local awareness about the difficulties of accessing clean water in Afghanistan. The money that was raised went to repairing a broken water pump in an Afghan village. The reported effect on students and teachers involved in the project was increased engagement, a sense of contributing to peace efforts in a war-torn region of the world, and a connection across two very distinct cultures. • Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP): The Resolving Conflict Creatively Program is an approach that places as much importance on the emotional quotient of students as on the intellectual quotient. The emotional quotient, or “emotional intelligence,” is measured according to five factors: 1. Self-awareness, or the ability to recognize what one is feeling 2. Self-control, or the ability to handle one’s emotions 3. Self-motivation, or the ability to maintain drive in the face of frustration 4. Empathy, or the ability to imagine and understand the emotions of others 5. Social competency, or the ability to handle the emotions of others Studies indicate that the emotional intelligence of American children has been in steady decline since the mid-1970s and, therefore, is correlated with a decline in school performance and an increase in school violence. Moreover, studies show that the emotional center of the brain—the cerebral cortex—is still actively developing until mid to late adolescence. On the basis of this information, the RCCP proposes that schools become centers of learning not only of academic material but also of critical life skills in emotional and social competency. Thus the fostering of self-control and self-regulation skills, social awareness and group participation skills, and social decision-making and problem-solving skills are incorporated into the curriculum of the program. Teachers in schools that have implemented RCCP report less violence in their classrooms, children’s spontaneous use of conflict resolution skills, improved self-esteem, and more caring and accepting behavior among students.

Peace Education, High School

• Comer School Development Program (SDP): The Comer School Development Program is a three-tiered program, involving parents, teachers, and students. The first component of the program is a planning committee made up of parents and school staff, where decisions are made about school policies, school environment, and specific programs. The second component comprises a team of students and staff members including trained professionals, such as guidance counselors, developmental psychologists, and pediatricians, who determine socially and developmentally appropriate responses to issues facing students. The third component is a program designed to give parents specific and meaningful involvement in the school. The program specifies 12 areas of emphasis: 1. Order and discipline 2. Respect, trust, and kindness among students 3. Caring and sensitivity on the part of school personnel 4. Fair and equal treatment for all students 5. Equal access to resources 6. High expectations for student achievement 7. Parental involvement 8. Maintenance of the school building’s physical appearance 9. Academic focus 10. Collaborative decision making 11. Productive school–community relations 12. An absence of finger pointing (between students, teachers, parents, and members of the administration) These 12 areas of emphasis are thoughtfully and cooperatively implemented by the three teams—the staff and parent committee, the student and professional staff team, and the parental team. Together and with the preceding emphases in mind, the teams work to enhance the environment within the school, to increase the level of support for students, and to find innovative ways to resolve conflicts. For example, in one school where SDP was implemented, it was found that many of the violent incidents at school took place after the final bell, when halls were crowded and students were rushing to go. The parental team of the SDP recommended that dismissal times for the various classes be staggered, so as to decrease congestion in the halls and reduce violent incidents. The school board agreed to a week’s trial period, which proved wildly successful and led to implementation of a permanent policy. This child-centered approach can be simply implemented

349

350

Pennington, Douglas

in traditional school settings and has had a transformational effect on students, parents, and teachers alike, with particular effectiveness in schools in poverty-stricken urban areas. Megan Barnes Further Reading Haynes, N. (1996). Creating safe and caring school communities: Comer School Development Program. Schools, 3, 308–314. Lantieri, L., & Patti, J. (1996). Educating children in a violent society. Journal of Negro Education, 65(3), 356–368. Lin, J., Brantmeier, E., & Bruhn, C. (2008). Transforming education for peace. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Marion, M., Rousseau, J., & Gollin, K. (2009). Connecting our villages: The Afghan sister schools project at the Carolina Friends School. Peace & Change, 34(4), 548–570. Mortenson, G. (2009). Stones into schools: Promoting peace with books, not bombs, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. New York: Viking Press.

Pennington, Douglas On September 2, 2006, Douglas Pennington, age 49, drove two hours from his home and entered the campus of Shepherd University in West Virginia. He was ostensibly there to visit his two sons, Logan Pennington, age 26, and Benjamin Pennington, age 24, who were both seniors and roommates at the university. Instead, at approximately 2 P.M., the elder Pennington used a .38-caliber revolver to shoot his two sons outside between two buildings before shooting himself. Witnesses say they saw Pennington fire at one son, then shoot the other as he tried to run away. Students reported seeing the three bodies lying on the ground as rescuers attempted to administer cardiopulmonary resuscitation. All three were taken to nearby medical facilities, where they were pronounced dead. State Police Sergeant C. C. Morton initially labeled the event the outcome of a family issue. University President David L. Dunlop announced that the entire community was stunned, yet also spoke out quickly to convince students there was no other threat. Counseling was offered to students who were interested in seeing someone to discuss the emotional ramifications of the matter. Pennington left several notes in the car that he drove to the university, and investigators found a notebook in his home. In both, he discussed internal battles, feelings of guilt and pain, and his love for his family. Pennington wrote that he always lost those he loved and feared he would lose his family as well. He articulated that

Police and Surveillance, College

he was “forced” to do something to them before someone else could, writing, “I must do the unthinkable.” He had been under the care of a mental health physician, Dr. Michael Ehlers, at Western Maryland Health Systems, but had missed two appointments with Dr. Ehlers. His mother, Mary Pennington, told police that her son had been experiencing negative side effects from his medication and that the medication seemed to make him “senile.” Family members also said they had tried to have Pennington hospitalized for his mental illness, but their efforts had failed. Others noticed that Pennington was acting strangely and had visited his sons more frequently leading up to the shootings. Pennington purchased his gun only two days before the shooting incident. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Laris, M., & Samuels, R. (2006, September 3). Man kills self, two sons at university in W.Va. Washington Post. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from http://www .washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/02/ AR2006090201223.html Smoot, N. (2007, March 20). Shepherd shooting motive revealed. Retrieved from http://ssristories.com/show.php?item=1663

Police and Surveillance, College On May 6, 2008, in the largest drug operation on a college campus in U.S. history, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced that after a six-monthlong undercover investigation on the campus of San Diego State University (SDSU)—one of the largest schools in California’s state university system, with approximately 34,000 students—96 people had been arrested, including 75 students, on state and federal drug distribution charges. Operation Sudden Fall targeted large-scale marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy distribution at SDSU. It involved the use of police surveillance, including intercepted text messages between university students, along with video surveillance. In addition, undercover police officers posing as college students made more than 130 drug purchases on campus. According to the DEA, the seized evidence included 4 pounds of cocaine, 50 pounds of marijuana, 48 hydroponic marijuana plants, 350 ecstasy pills, 30 vials of hash oil, methamphetamine, psilocybin (mushrooms), various illicit prescription drugs, a shotgun, three semi-automatic pistols, three brass knuckles, and $60,000 in cash. These types of incidents are more frequently occurring on college campuses across the United States. Over the past several years, due to escalating crime rates on college campuses, police activity at these sites has dramatically increased. According to

351

352

Police and Surveillance, College

Campus Carry, an organization that advocates for the availability of concealed weapons on campuses, 71% of college campuses across the United States are patrolled by armed police officers. In 2008, 13 students were murdered on college campuses across the country. In 2007, 12 student murders occurred—although this statistic does not include the shooting spree at Virginia Tech, which resulted in the deaths of 32 students and the wounding of an additional 21 students. In addition, in 2007, 52,744 alcohol-related arrests, 21,948 drug-related arrests, and 1803 illegal weapons arrests occurred on college and university campuses across the United States. Due to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, better known as the Clery Act (20 USC § 1092(f)), all colleges and universities that participate in federal financial aid programs must keep and disclose information about crime on and near their respective campuses. On August 14, 2008, the Clery Act was amended—largely due to the Virginia Tech shootings—to require college campuses to develop and implement emergency response plans. Domestic terrorism is also a major issue at U.S. universities today, and is another factor that is leading to an increased police presence on college campuses. To date, ecoterrorists and animal rights extremist groups such as the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) have been responsible for more than 2,000 crimes and more than $110 million in damages due to bombings and arsons across the United States. On collegiate campuses, these groups have attacked and destroyed laboratories at the University of Iowa, the University of Michigan, the University of Minnesota, Louisiana State University, and the University of Wisconsin. Additionally, law enforcement has gotten involved in cases in which professors have been accused of terrorism. On February 20, 2003, University of South Florida professor Dr. Sami Al-Arian was arrested and charged with raising funds and managing the finances of an international terrorist organization that perpetrates violence, largely in Israel. The Justice Department named Al-Arian as the financial director of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in a 50-count indictment. At the time, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft named the PIJ as one of the most violent terrorist groups in the world. Al-Arian was charged, along with seven other individuals, with operating a racketeering enterprise since 1984 and using charitable and educational organizations as front groups for money laundering for the PIJ. In the wake of these charges, Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly called attention to Al-Arian’s sometimes inflammatory speeches. Al-Arian’s arrest resulted in a backlash against the University of South Florida, with some referring to it as “Jihad University.” The almost immediate result was threats of violence, cancelled classes, and a 5% drop in alumni support. On December 19, 2001, the USF Board of Trustees voted to suspend Al-Arian without pay. In turn, some students rallied to his defense, even circulating petitions for the professor’s reinstatement.

Police and Surveillance, College

A wiretap on his phone, however, seemed to prove Al-Arian’s guilt. A series of calls, faxes, and bank transactions demonstrated he had been involved with money transfers involving the PIJ, the Iranian and Syrian governments, Hamas, and other sources in Sudan. Records also showed that Al-Arian arranged to obtain false documentation for known terrorists who entered the United States and helped them to avoid government scrutiny. In all, the federal government, using provisions of the USA Patriot Act, gathered 20,000 hours of phone conversations and faxes, some as old as 1993, as evidence against Al-Arian. On December 7, 2005, Al-Arian was acquitted of conspiracy to aid PIJ. The Tampa jury deliberated for 13 days before rejecting the prosecutor’s arguments. Between 2006 and 2008, Al-Arian was sub poenaed to testify in three terrorismrelated investigations. He refused to testify each time and was imprisoned for 13 months for criminal contempt. The increased use of police and electronic surveillance on college campuses has not gone without criticism. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), citing concerns about free speech on campus, has filed Freedom of Information Act requests seeking details on government surveillance of college professors and students nationwide. The concern is that this type of surveillance will impede academic freedom and stifle the dissent that is a hallmark of campuses across the nation. Tony Gaskew Further Reading Campus crime statistics: http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/arrests2005-07.pdf Campus law enforcement statistics. (n.d.). Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/cample.htm Citing free speech concerns. (2002). American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17079prs20021212.html FBI charges Florida professor with terrorist activities. (2003, February 20). CNN. Retrieved May 26, 2010, from http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/02/20/ professor.arrest/ Inside security. (2008). National Association of Colleges and Business Officers. Retrieved from http://asumag.com/security/inside_security_nacubo/ Kay, J. (2005, December 8). Palestinian activist Sami Al-Arian acquitted on charges in Florida. World Socialist Web Site. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/aria-d08.shtml Kline, M. (2006, June 29). Eco-terrorism in higher education. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.academia.org/eco-terrorism-in-higher-education/ NSSC works to promote safety on college and university campuses. (n.d.). Retrieved from National School Safety Center: http://www.schoolsafety.us/ Ward, D., & Lee, J. (2005). The handbook for campus crime reporting. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=1054

353

354

Police and Surveillance, High School

Police and Surveillance, High School Historically, school crimes generated very little interest among policymakers until the late 1980s and early 1990s, when a rash of school shootings and the ushering in of crack cocaine afflicted schools across the United States. In fact, during the past decade, more than 300 school-associated violent deaths occurred on or near school campuses in America. In 1992–1993 alone, 42 student homicides occurred on school premises throughout the United States. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 78% of schools experienced one or more incidents of violent crime in the 2005–2006 school year. Seventeen percent experienced one or more serious violent incidents, 46% experienced one or more thefts, and 68% experienced another type of crime. In fact, since the shootings at Columbine High School, police departments across the country have drastically changed their response tactics to shooting incidents occurring on high school campuses. Police officers now employ active shooter response tactics when responding to shootings at a high school. The active shooter tactic requires the initial responding officers at the scene of a school shooting to immediately pursue and establish contact with the shooter, so as to contain, capture, or neutralize the shooter. This approach represents a dramatic shift in police response tactics for violent incidents occurring at school settings. Historically, the initial officers arriving at a school shooting would simply secure the scene until specially trained officers, such as SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) team members, were deployed to the site. One of the fatal lessons learned form the Columbine High School shootings is that it is imperative for responding officers to react immediately and without delay to school shootings so as to minimize casualties. As a result of the dramatic rise in school violence in the 1990s and early 2000s, policymakers across the United States intensified their efforts to enhance school safety measures and implemented a variety of security tactics, including the use of metal detectors, zero-tolerance security polices mandating expulsion or suspension for violations of school safety policies, the use of electronic surveillance cameras, and the assignment of sworn police officers to patrol schools. Among these new school safety measures, the use of armed police officers and video surveillance cameras are arguably the most significant because of their authoritarian and intrusive nature. The issue of police and the use of electronic surveillance in school settings has always been a matter of intense legal debate. In many states, juveniles are required by law to attend high school until they reach maturity, which is generally considered 18 years of age. Within this legal mandate, juveniles are required to report to school for the majority of the year, normally 5 days per week, where they are subjected to a variety of intrusive school policies, rules, and regulations, which

Police and Surveillance, High School

may include the use of metal detectors, electronic surveillance cameras, and the search and seizure of their persons and property, including lockers. In the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that although students do not forfeit all Fourth Amendment rights to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure at school, school officials do not need a search warrant to search a student or a student’s possessions. Additionally, the Supreme Court established that school officials need only reasonable suspicion that the search will produce evidence the student violated a state law or school policy before engaging in such a search. In summary, high school students are legally required to attend school, where they have little or no legal authority to refuse to comply with schoolmandated security tactics. Currently, more than 75% of all new schools in the United States are being equipped with video surveillance systems. The most popular school surveillance devices are digital or analog cameras for video recording, but other technologies in use in this setting include metal detectors, ID cards, Internet tracking, biometrics, transparent lockers and book bags, electronic gates, and two-way radios. On September 17, 2008, the School Safety Enhancements Act was passed. The bill includes a $50 million initiative to purchase closed-circuit surveillance equipment for schools. Although it is difficult to ascertain the exact number of police officers assigned to high schools across the United States, according to Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) data, more than one-third of all sheriffs’ offices and almost half of all local police departments have sworn officers in schools. It is estimated that more than 17,000 school resource officers (SROs) are assigned permanently to schools. In a survey of U.S. public schools, more than 68% of high schools with 1,000 or more students reported the presence of an SRO on campus. The official duties of an SRO—who is considered a hybrid of educational, correctional, and law enforcement official—vary. According to the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO), their responsibilities may include assisting in delinquency prevention programs such as Drug Abuse Resistance and Education (D.A.R.E.), patrolling the school grounds, traffic supervision, assisting with the control of disruptive students, intelligence gathering for criminal investigations, attending parent and faculty meetings, and providing inservice training to faculty and staff personnel. Today, the new question facing high schools across the United States is how far schools must go to create a safe and secure environment for students in an era of global terrorism. Currently, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is conducting training at high schools across the country, educating faculty and staff on crisis response and emergency management techniques in preparation for potential terrorist attacks occurring at or near high school campuses. Tony Gaskew

355

356

Policies and Campus Violence Laws

Further Reading Brown, B. (2006). Understanding and assessing school police officers: A conceptual and methodological comment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 591–604. Indicators of school crime and safety. (2007). Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/abstract/iscs07.htm Managing your schools: Under threat of terrorism. (n.d.) National School Safety Center. Retrieved from http://www.schoolsafety.us/

Policies and Campus Violence Laws There are approximately 16 million students enrolled in 4,200 colleges and universities in the United States. Approximately 479,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 were victims of violence-related crimes on campus between 1995 and 2002. Many college and university students have become victims of crimes, such as campus shootings; murder-suicides; homicides; hate crimes based on students’ and employees’ gender, race, or sexual orientation; bullying; hazing; robbery; assault; and arson. Statistics on campus violence compiled by the American College Health Association (ACHA) indicate that approximately 15% to 20% of female college students have been rape victims; one out of every 14 men in college has been assaulted by an intimate partner; 8% of men and 1% of women possess firearms on campus; 7% of students have been in a physical fights and 4% have been physically assaulted. ACHA also found that only 35% of violent crimes on campus were reported to the police. In spite of the fact that violence in school has declined since the late 1990s, serious violent occurrences on campuses have prompted colleges and universities to act. In recent years, several school shooting cases on college campuses (for example, the Virginia Tech University and Northern Illinois University shootings) have prompted calls for additional precautionary measures in colleges and universities across the country. Most campuses have counseling centers and trauma-based interventions for survivors of sexual assault, date rape, stalking, and homicide. Some institutions, such as Illinois State University, have enacted a campus safety policy that would ensure a secure environment for all students, employees, and visitors affiliated with the university; violation of the campus safety policy may result in disciplinary action up to and including expulsion, termination of employment, and pursuance of civil and criminal penalties. In conjunction with campus policies concerning violence, federal legislation targeting this problem has been enacted, including the Campus Sexual Assault Victims’ Bill of Rights (1992), the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (1998), the Campus Sex Crime Prevention Act (2000), and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). State legislation has also

Policies and Campus Violence Laws

Police officers run from Norris Hall on the Virginia Tech campus. (AP/Wide World Photos)

been enacted, such as the Michael Minger Act (2000) passed by Kentucky lawmakers. The Campus Sexual Assault Victims’ Bill of Rights was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1992 as a part of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 (Public Law: 102-325, section 486[c]). This law mandates that all higher education institutions (both public and private) participating in federal student aid programs grant sexual assault victims certain basic rights. Schools are also required to notify sexual assault victims of their option to report their assault to law enforcement. Schools that violate this law may be fined as much as $27,500 or lose their eligibility to participate in federal student aid programs. In accordance with the law, universities are required to provide educational programs on rape and sexual assault awareness; to enforce sanctions for rape and sexual assault on campus; to provide students with information on procedures to follow should sexual assault occurs; and to inform students of on-campus disciplinary action.

357

358

Policies and Campus Violence Laws

The Clery Act [20 USC § 1092(f)] is a federal law, also known as the Campus Security Act, that requires colleges and universities in the United States to disclose information about crime on and around their campuses. This legislation was named in memory of Jeanne Ann Clery, a 19-year-old Lehigh University student who was raped, sodomized, tortured, and murdered in her dormitory room in 1986; after the crime, Clery’s parents discovered that Lehigh students were not informed of 38 incidences of violence on campus within three years prior to her murder. Until 1988, only 4% of America’s colleges and universities had reported crime statistics to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The Clery Act is tied to participation in federal student financial aid programs and enforced by the U.S. Department of Education. In conjunction with the Clery Act, the Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act (section 1601 of Public Law 106-386) was enacted in 2000. This federal law mandates tracking of convicted and registered sex offenders who are enrolled as students in a college or university, or working or volunteering on campus. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA; 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) permits notifications concerning health and safety issues related to students. Although this legislation was designed to safeguard students’ privacy, psychologists, psychiatrists, and counselors nevertheless have a duty to warn if threats are made against a particular person by their clients. Courts have ruled that colleges are obligated to take reasonable steps to protect students. The FERPA legislation was amended in the aftermath of Jain v. State (2000). In this case, Sanjay Jain, a freshman at the University of Iowa, attempted to commit suicide, but his family was not made aware of the attempt. A second suicide attempt succeeded. Jain’s father argued that FERPA, which authorizes disclosure of confidential information to protect the health or safety of a student, required the school to notify Sanjay’s family about the student’s suicidal behavior. Jain’s father unsuccessfully argued that the university violated FERPA by failing to notify him of his son’s actions, which constituted an emergency situation. The Michael Minger Act is a Kentucky state law that requires public and private colleges and universities licensed by the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE) to report crimes on campus to campus employees, students, and the public in a timely manner. It was proposed by Gail Minger, whose 19-year-old son Michael was killed in an arson fire at Murray State University in 1998. Information about an earlier arson fire in Minger’s residence hall was not disclosed to students and their parents. The Michael Minger Act was ratified in 2000, and additional provisions dealing with student housing fire safety were passed in 2004. This legislation also requires a crime log to be made available to the public online; this log must record incidents that are known to the police and school officials on campus, as well as make special reports in the instances of ongoing threat to the

Poulin, Robert

safety of students and employees. Colleges and universities are also required to submit crime statistics to the CPE annually. Violence and crimes on college and university campuses are serious problems in the United States, which have prompted implementation of a variety of policies and programs to deter violence on campus. In conjunction with these policies and programs, students, employees, school officials, and law enforcement must adopt a joint collaborative effort to protect students and ensure a safe and secure campus. Jun Sung Hong Further Reading Baum, K., & Klaus, P. (2005). Violent victimization of college students, 1995– 2002 (NCJ Publication No. 206836). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics). Carr, J. L. (2005). American College Health Association campus violence white paper. Baltimore, MD: American College Health Association. Cohen, V. K. (2007). Keeping students alive: Mandating on-campus counseling saves suicidal college students’ lives and limits liability. Fordham Law Review, 75, 3081–3135. Security on Campus, Inc. (n.d.). Retrieved June 12, 2009, from http://www .securityoncampus.org U.S. Department of Education (2002). Integrated postsecondary education data system (IPEDS) enrollment survey, spring 2002. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved June 12, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/ pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003168

Poulin, Robert On October 27, 1975, 18-year-old Robert Poulin shot seven people, killing one, at St. Pius X High School in Ottawa, Canada. Prior to the shooting at the school, Poulin had raped and killed a girl, Kim Rabot, in his home. He handcuffed his victim to the bed, sexually assaulted her, and then stabbed her to death. Poulin then set his house on fire and proceeded to the school. He killed himself before he could face justice. Poulin had a fairly normal upbringing. His father was a former pilot with the Royal Canadian Air Force, who later became a teacher. His mother was a nurse. Poulin had two much older sisters and one younger sister. As a child, he was described as mellow—not the kind of person who was easily upset or frequently in trouble. The family attended church regularly. As a youth, Poulin had several

359

360

Poulin, Robert

jobs, including delivering newspapers and working in a pizza shop. He was considered a conscientious worker, and he got good grades at school. Socially, however, Poulin struggled. He was born with a pigeon chest, or a convex chest. His poor vision prevented him from pursuing his dream as a pilot and he wore thick, “Coke-bottle” glasses. He also looked young for his age, hit puberty later than most adolescents, and was slightly overweight. Poulin was shy and particularly awkward with girls. Although he had a lot of friends as a child, he had fewer as a teen. He was not described as a loner, however. One of Poulin’s hobbies was playing war games; he and friends played over the telephone, and Poulin played the games alone as well. Poulin desperately wanted to be in the military. Perhaps one of the pivotal life events that led to his attack occurred when he thought he was accepted for officer training but was later rejected for being immature. Poulin had lied on his application, alleging involvement with sports teams that never happened. He later joined the Cameron Highlanders militia and received military training. In the militia, Poulin first seemed timid but later made friends. He was generally serious, however, and would not talk about his family, like other soldiers did. Poulin was said to be obsessed with sex and pornography, maintaining an index of several pornographic magazines. After the shooting incident, police found a binder with nearly 1,000 separate entries, all written by Poulin, next to pictures and advertisements. He had a total of 250 pornographic books and magazines. Police also found four pairs of handcuffs in his room, as well as a box of women’s clothing, an inflatable sex doll, a vibrator, and a list of the names of 18 girls. Although there is no conclusive proof he was responsible, several of those girls had received obscene telephone calls that stopped after Poulin’s suicide. There had also been complaints about assaults and attempted rapes in an apartment building near where Poulin lived, and the descriptions of the assailant fit him. Some women reported that the assailant had woven a balaclava, a scarf-like head covering, and Poulin had written that he would wear a balaclava when he raped a woman. Leading up the shooting, Poulin had suffered from depression. A diary entry from the previous April describes his suicidal thoughts, although he wrote that he would not act on them until he had engaged in sex with a girl. Poulin also wrote about robbing people and burning down his own home so that his family could suffer. His writing suggests he saw death as something positive, calling it “true bliss.” Psychologist Peter Langman has suggested that Poulin was psychotic, based on his lack of empathy and remorse. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Langman, P. (2009). Expanding the sample. Retrieved May 5, 2010, from http:// www.schoolshooters.info/expanding-the-sample.pdf

Prescription Drugs and School Crime and Violence

Shooting violence in Canadian schools 1975 to 2007. (n.d.). Retrieved May 5, 2010, from http://www.thestar.com/news/article/217023 Why did he do it? (2007, April 18). Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved May 5, 2010, from http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=e94922ba-eccb -4f19-aaf2- e79170403dfb&k=54359

Prescription Drugs and School Crime and Violence Many have speculated that either the side effects from taking certain prescription drugs or the withdrawal from taking them has been a factor in school and campus shootings. In particular, a certain class of antidepressant drugs, known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), has been linked to a number of the most serious incidents of violent crime on school and university campuses. This category of drugs includes Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, Lexapro, and Luvox. Newer SSRIs include Remeron and Anafranil. Another similar category consists of the serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), which include Effexor, Serzone, Cymbalta, and Pristiq. Dopamine reuptake inhibitors include wellbutrin, which is marketed as Zyban. Many of these drugs were not tested on young people, yet have been increasingly prescribed to them. Once the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves a drug for use, it can be prescribed to any population, regardless of whether the drug has been formally tested in that group. SSRIs and other antidepressants are known to cause the following side effects: • Manic reaction (mania—e.g., kleptomania, pyromania, dipsomania) • Abnormal thinking • Hallucinations • Personality disorder

A pharmacist reviews the label on a prescription drug bottle. (iStockPhoto)

361

362

Prescription Drugs and School Crime and Violence

• • • • • • • • • • • •

Amnesia Agitation Psychosis Abnormal dreams emotional lability (or instability) Alcohol abuse and/or craving Hostility Paranoid reactions Confusion Delusions Sleep disorders Akathisia (severe inner restlessness) Discontinuation (withdrawal) syndrome

Following is a partial list of some of the incidents in which a prescription drug has been implicated:

• In 1988, Laurie Dann had been taking Anafranil and lithium when she killed one child and wounded six at an Illinois elementary school.

• Also in 1988, James Wilson, who had been taking Xanax, Valium, and several other drugs, shot and killed two eight-year-old girls and wounded seven others at an elementary school in Greenwood, South Carolina.

• In 1989, Patrick Purdy shot and killed five and wounded 30 other elementary school students in Stockton, California. Purdy had been taking thorazine and amitriptyline.

• Toby R. Sincino shot two Blackville-Hilda High School teachers on October 12, 1995, killing one. Sincino, who killed himself moments later, had been taking the antidepressant Zoloft.

• On May 21, 1998, Kip Kinkel killed four and wounded 23 at Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon. Kinkel had been taking Prozac.

• On April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 13 and wounded 23 others before killing themselves at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Harris had been taking Luvox.

• On May 20, 1999, T. J. Solomon, who was taking Ritalin, wounded six people at Heritage High School in Conyers, Georgia.

• On March 25, 2005, Jeff Weise killed nine and injured five at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota. Weise had been taking Prozac.

Prescription Drugs and School Crime and Violence

• On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho murdered 32 people at Virginia Tech University, in the deadliest campus shooting ever. Cho had been taking prescription medications.

• In 2006, Duane Morrison shot and killed a girl at Platte Canyon High School in Colorado. Antidepressants later were found in his vehicle.

• On February 14, 2008, shooter Steve Kazmierczak shot 21 people at Northern Illinois University, killing five. He had recently stopped taking Prozac.

• On September 23, 2008, Finnish school shooter Matti Saari killed 10 people and then himself. Saari was taking an SSRI medicinal product as well as a benzodiazepine.

• In November 2009, Christopher Craft, Sr., a graduate of Stissing Mountain Junior-Senior High School, walked into the school around 7:45 A.M., with a concealed disassembled shotgun. After reassembling the weapon in a bathroom, he entered the middle school office and took Principal Robert Hess as a hostage. Craft had been taking Cymbalta for depression.

The federal government has begun to react to what seems by now to be a trend. On September 14, 2008, the FDA mandated that pharmacies provide parents or guardians of patients younger than the age of 18 for whom antidepressants have been prescribed with an Antidepressant Patient Medication Guide. On September 14, 2008, the FDA ordered that a “black box” warning label be placed on antidepressants, describing the risk of suicide for persons younger than age 18 who take these drugs. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Cullen, D. (2010). Columbine. New York: Twelve. Davey, M., & Harris, G. (2005, March 26). Family wonders if Prozac prompted school shootings. New York Times. Retrieved April 14, 2010, from http://www .nytimes.com/2005/03/26/national/26shoot.html Huffington, A. (2007, April 19). Virginia Tech aftermath: Did legal drugs play a role in the massacre? Huffington Post. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www .huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/virginia-tech-aftermath- d_b_46280 .html SSRI stories. (n.d.). Retrieved April 14, 2010, from http://www.ssristories.com/ index.php Vossekuil, B., Fein, R., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2002). The final report and findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. Jessup, MD: Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education.

363

364

Prince, Phoebe

Prince, Phoebe On January 14, 2010, Phoebe Nora Mary Prince, an immigrant from Ireland, hung herself on the stairwell leading to the second floor of her family’s home. She had endured yet another day of bullying and torment at South Hadley High School in Hadley, Massachusetts, compounded by the fact that the group of girls who harassed her most threw a can of Red Bull out a car window, hitting Prince as she walked home from school. What emerged in the months following Prince’s death was that this abuse had been going on for some time. Kids at the school routinely knocked Prince’s books from her hands, threw things at her in the hallway, scribbled her face out of photographs, and even sent her threatening text messages. Particularly ruthless was a group of girls who have been dubbed “the Mean Girls” for their resemblance to the characters in the 2004 movie. They called Prince “Irish slut” and “whore,” both in school and on the social networking site Facebook, as well as on Twitter, Craigslist, and Formspring. Evidently the girls started bullying Prince after she briefly dated a popular senior football player at the beginning of her freshman year. Even after Prince’s suicide, the girls posted mean comments on the Facebook page that was to serve as a memorial for their classmate. On March 29, 2010, authorities announced that they had indicted nine teenagers for bullying Prince and prompting her suicide. Seven girls and two boys were charged with a variety of offenses, including statutory rape for the boys, violation of civil rights with bodily injury, criminal harassment, and stalking. The announcement came far too late for some in the community, who were enraged that the girls had seemed to be able to get away with their horrific behavior. Investigators had looked at whether the school should face some blame, given that some officials admitted they knew Prince had been bullied, with some even witnessing it. Investigators found there was no criminal responsibility, but stated that the behavior of some adults was certainly troubling. On April 8, 2010, three of the girls entered “not guilty” pleas to the charges. Reports are that the girls are receiving hateful messages and that social networking sites and message boards have featured calls for them to suffer like Prince did. Unfortunately, Prince’s suicide is not the only recent one related to bullying—an outcome that experts have come to call “bullycide.” Only a few months prior to Prince’s death, 17-year-old Tyler Lee Long, who suffered from Asperger’s syndrome (a mild form of autism), endured similar humiliation at the hands of classmates at Murray County High School in Georgia. The bullying began in fifth grade, when one student began pushing Tyler around. From then on, he faced a torrent of verbal and physical abuse on a daily basis. As in Prince’s case, adults were generally indifferent to Long’s plight. When the family reported the incidents, the school’s response was generally “Boys will be boys.” At the beginning of 10th grade, Long

Prince, Phoebe

was pushed down a flight of stairs, yet the school still took no action against the perpetrators. Long hung himself from his bedroom closet door on October 17, 2009. In March 2010, his parents filed suit against the Murray County School District and Murray High School principal Gail Linder for failing to protect Tyler, even after they had repeatedly told Linder about the bullying. An attorney for the district and Linder has said the defendants had no information to suggest Long was being bullied. Parents, including the Longs, are growing frustrated with what they have called the “see no evil” approach on the part of schools. They suggest that schools too often characterize bullying as a harmless adolescent rite of passage. Parents have begun to organize anti-bullying campaigns. Groups providing anti-bullying curricula and programs are now sure to include cyberbullying in their materials. Statistics are not clear about how often bullycide occurs. Bullying itself occurs regularly. Bullying is ultimately about power; it is intentional mistreatment with the goal of obtaining and maintaining power over the victim. In 2009, the National Center for Educational Statistics found that almost one-third of students ages 12 to 18 reported being bullied in school, an increase of more than 20% from 2001. Part of this increase, however, may be the result of more and better reporting. Cyberbullying may be even more common. A 2008 study in The Journal of School Health found that 75% of teens have been bullied online, but only 10% reported the problem to their parents or other adults. It is easier for bullies to harass their victims online than in a face-to-face manner, and they can engage in cyberbullying from anywhere, at any time. Like face-to-face bullying, cyberbullying often targets those who are different, including minorities, children with disabilities, those who are smaller than classmates, or very heavyset kids. It is clear that bullying has significant negative effects, even if it does not lead the victim to suicide. Victims are often depressed, which leads them to become even more isolated. They may miss school, and their performance is likely to suffer. In addition to the impact on victims, bullying damages the climate of the entire school. Violence prevention and anti-bullying programs are increasingly focusing on how to improve the overall school climate. These considerations include the physical facilities, trust and respect among teachers and students, openness to new ideas, opportunities for all to participate, and much more. Experts caution against standing up to bullies—the response that is so often presented in film and television. The concern is that bullies tend to have either a size advantage or a cohort of supporters, and maybe both. Further, bullies tend to have above-average self-esteem and see themselves as entitled; thus they are not likely to respond to reasoning. Experts suggest several elements are critical for dealing with bullies. First, adults must intervene on behalf of the victims. Studies have shown that bullies

365

366

Professor-Perpetrated Crime and Violence

are most likely to cease harassing victims when adults become involved. Having more adults present is a first step, followed by vigorous enforcement of policy when an incident occurs. Second, children should be empowered to intervene when they are bystanders to bullying. Third, bullies must be punished fairly and consistently. Finally, it is essential that the entire school community, including students, administrators, staff, and parents, receive anti-bullying training. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Clark-Flory, T. (2010, April 8). Phoebe Prince’s bullies get bullied. Salon. Retrieved May 5, 2010, from http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/04/ 08/phoebe_prince_bullies_get_bullied Kennedy, H. (2010, March 29). Phoebe Prince, South Hadley High School’s “new girl,” driven to suicide by teenage cyber bullies. New York Daily News. Retrieved April 28, 2010, from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ 2010/03/29/2010-03-29_phoebe_prince_south_hadley_high_schools_new_girl _driven_to_suicide_by_teenag e_cy.html Ollove, M. (2010, April 28). Bullying and teen suicide: How do we adjust school climate? Retrieved April 28, 2010, from http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/ 20100428/ts_csm/297160_1 Parker-Pope, T. (2007, November 27). More teens victimized by cyber-bullies. The New York Times, p. 1–1. Retrieved July 30, 2009, from http://well.blogs .nytimes.com/2007/11/27/more-teens-victimized-by-cyber-bullies/

Professor-Perpetrated Crime and Violence Crime pervades all areas of human life, and colleges and universities are no exception. Professors are susceptible to the same failings and criminal activity as the rest of society. Professor-perpetrated crimes are linked to crime-related opportunities provided in their employment at colleges. Other crimes of violence are less likely to be related directly to professors’ position of authority and trust. Much of the phenomenon of professors as murder victims or as perpetrators has been attributed to the competitive atmosphere and intense performance evaluations for professors, referred to as “publish or perish.” By comparison, sexual harassment accusations increased dramatically on college campuses in the 1990s as legislation established stricter guidelines; such events have typically involved a male professor and a younger female instructor or student. Sexual and violence-related crimes are not linked to professors’ employment, however, but rather to underlying deviations. Mishandling of defense secrets is not something that one would normally associate with a college professor. Nevertheless, J. Reece Roth was accused of passing

Professor-Perpetrated Crime and Violence

information from a U.S. Air Force contract to two of his foreign research assistants, who were from China and Iran. His actions were considered crimes under the Arms Export Control Act. Roth’s materials from his office were seized as well as his computer when he returned from a lecture tour in China. He eventually pleaded guilty to 10 counts of exporting defense-related materials. An unusual case involving former professor John J. Donovan, Sr., occurred in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Donovan told police that he had been shot and accused his eldest son of arranging the incident. Evidence revealed that Donovan had actually shot himself in the stomach and sprayed bullets around to frame members of his own family. The judge in the case ordered Donovan to stay away from one of his sons, his three daughters, and their spouses. He was also put on probation, ordered to pay $625, perform 200 hours of community service, and undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Some of the most heinous crimes imaginable involve those that victimize children. Professor Antonio Lasaga faced charges in court for receiving 150,000 pornographic images of children. The images were found on both his home and university computers. Lasaga was also convicted of sexually assaulting and filming the abuse of a young boy. The boy was six when the abuse started, and it lasted for several years. The professor was sentenced to 15 years in prison for the electronic images and 20 years for the rape and videotaping of the assault. Lasagna was ordered to participate in sex offender treatment and register with the sex offender registry upon his release from prison. Former professor Jack Harclerode pleaded guilty to indecent sexual assault and corruption of a minor. He received a 9- to 30-month sentence and was declared a sexually violent predator. The investigation into Harclerode uncovered 245 sexually explicit photographs of young boys, and he was convicted on 20 counts of possession of child pornography. The trial revealed long-term abuse of boys spanning four decades, according to Harclerode’s daughter. Not all offenders succeed in victimizing children, despite their nefarious intent. Albert Snow, a chemistry professor, received a sentence of 10 years in prison after his conviction for enticement of a minor. Snow talked online to someone he thought was a 15-year-old girl but who was actually a police officer; Snow was arrested when he searched for the girl at an apartment complex. A professor in Hawaii, Marc Fossorier, was arrested for a similar incident. A state investigator was posing as a 15-year-old on the internet when Fossorier talked with her and arranged to have sex. He was sentenced to a year in jail and five years of probation. Former professor Joshua Young Moon faced a charge of object sexual penetration after assaulting a student in his office. The student suffered from headaches and backaches, and Moon offered to give her a massage. The student fell asleep and awoke to find Moon touching her. Moon pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual battery.

367

368

Professor-Perpetrated Crime and Violence

John M. Adams was a college professor in psychiatry. He also saw patients privately. He became aware of a malpractice suit that was being filed against him by a former patient and her husband. Adams claimed that he went to the couple’s house to talk about the lawsuit. He shot Bobby Burns and threatened Michelle Burns, but she escaped to a neighbor’s house. Adams fled in his own vehicle and then abandoned it a short time later. He then forced two women to drive him to Kentucky. Adams was sentenced to a minimum of 26 years in prison for aggravated burglary, kidnapping, and murder with a firearm specification. According to the UCR (Uniform Crime Reports), in 2008 34.7% of female murder victims were killed by a husband or boyfriend. In 2009, an argument with his wife spurred Professor George Zinkhan to shoot his wife at a community theater. He also killed two other people who were there and injured an additional two people. His children were waiting in the car at the time. Zinkhan then returned to his car and dropped his children off with a neighbor. He remained missing for two weeks. Zinkhan had committed suicide His body was finally discovered by cadaver dogs in the woods. Kansas State University Profesor Thomas Murray and his ex-wife had shared custody of their daughter, and it is believed that this arrangement was a source of contention between the two. When Carmin Ross-Murray was found beaten and stabbed to death, investigators looked at Thomas Murray as a suspect. The investigators amassed a large amount of evidence that led them to believe that Thomas Murray was responsible for the murder of his ex-wife. He was ultimately sentenced to life in prison. In 2004, a professor with a hidden past presented the world of academia with an unusual situation. Paul Krueger had been teaching at Penn State for 15 years, and no one knew of his criminal history. When he was 18 years old, Krueger killed three men who were on a fishing trip, leaving their bullet-ridden bodies behind. Krueger received three life sentences for the crime. Parole commissioners felt that he had been rehabilitated, so he was released after serving only 12 years of his sentence. Krueger went on to graduate school in California, married, and had a son. He eventually become a college professor. When his past was revealed to the public, Krueger resigned. Recently, Amy Bishop, a professor of neurobiology, opened fire on six of her colleagues after she learned that she had been denied tenure. She killed three of her colleagues and wounded three others. Seven years before this incident, Bishop had shot and killed her brother. At the time the crime was ruled accidental, but in 2010 Bishop was indicted for her brother’s death. A 2010 review of a 1993 attempted mail bombing at Harvard Medical School resulted in no charges filed against Bishop. Crimes perpetrated by professors are difficult for society to grasp due to the trust that parents and students place in these individuals. When these people

Property Crimes, College

commit unconscionable crimes such as pedophilia and murder, it is especially horrifying. Violent offenses appear to be precipitated by consistently high stress work environments, highly stressful personal situations, and a final incident that triggers a volatile response. Following the recent rash of college shootings, most states have enacted mandatory removal of professors for threatening physical harm to anyone on campus. The vast majority of university and college professors are, of course, lawabiding citizens. These individuals spend their lives educating others and creating research that propels our knowledge in all aspects of the sciences and humanities. Annika Vorhes Further Reading Amy Bishop Timeline. Boston Globe. Retrieved March 9, 2011 from http:// timelines.boston.com/timelines/amy-bishop Dewan, S., Saul, S., & Zezima, K. (2010, February 20). For professor, fury just beneath the surface. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes .com/2010/02/21/us/21bishop.html Ellement, J. R. (2007, August 18). Ex-professor found guilty of staging own shooting. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/ 2007/08/18/ex_professor_found_guilty_of_staging_own_shooting/

Property Crimes, College Destruction of property is an issue that college campuses continually face. As the United States continues to heal from the wave of school violence that characterized the late 1990s and early 2000s, college campuses have worked to increase the public’s confidence in the ability of schools to protect students. While property destruction is not as violent as other types of crimes, it still takes a toll on schools’ budgets and on student and staff morale, lessening the control that campus safety officials have over student actions. An examination of factors that may contribute to the occurrence of college property crimes and the transitional nature of college students’ lives, an understanding of the theoretical perspectives used to understand crime, and ways those theories can be applied to college property crime will better equip college students and staff to reach students who commit property crimes and prevent these crimes from happening in the first place. Substance abuse, peer group influence, and economic background are key factors that influence students’ decisions to destroy campus property, regardless of individual demographic differences. Substance abuse is a well-known problem for campus law enforcement. The abuse of drugs and alcohol leads to a whole host

369

370

Property Crimes, College

of problems, from car accidents and battery to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy. Research has shown that students who engage in regular drinking, taking part in the campus party scene, are significantly more likely to be somehow involved in campus crimes, including crimes against property. It follows logically that while a student is under the influence, with judgment impaired, property destruction may not seem as serious or risky as it would to a student with a sober mindset. Another external contributing factor to campus property destruction is the student’s peer group. A study examining the social influences on criminals cited three specific reasons a person may go along with a group’s decisions to commit a crime: “fear of ridicule, status striving, and the diffusion of responsibility within a group” (Hartley, 2011, p. 29). Just as alcohol and drugs can change a student’s general view of crime, so peer pressure can temporarily affect a student’s judgment. A student’s views on the ethics of property destruction while in a psychologically comfortable and secure mindset may change when that same student is scared of rejection. In addition to peer pressure, mere peer presence has an impact. One study addressing self-control and peer influence found that increased time spent with peers created a strong statistical effect that provides evidence of the importance of looking beyond the issues of individual self-control to other external contributing factors—in this case, the peer group. Specifically, destroying property with a group may lower the feeling of personal responsibility an individual student might have. While substance abuse and peer group are both immediate contributing factors to a student deciding to take part in the commission of a property crime, socioeconomic background may be an underlying factor. A study analyzing the link between poverty and property crime exposure reported that people living in high-crime neighborhoods were five times more likely to witness a property crime being committed than people who do not live in high-crime neighborhoods. Albert Bandura’s work demonstrates the strength of modeling—a psychological concept that asserts watching someone do something increases the chance the person watching will then do the same thing, much as children mimic their parents. Continuing along these lines, students who grow up seeing property crimes being committed will be more likely to commit such crimes themselves one day. The previously described factors are compounded by the transitional nature of being a college student. At a time when their identities are changing, and being formed through various experiences and relationships, students’ morals and values are not as absolute as they may have been before these individuals started college and, in many cases, moved out and away from home. A study examining the behavioral changes students experience during the transition from high school to college found that even when controlling for certain demographic characteristics, students experienced similar behavioral changes. Recent research done on college

Property Crimes, College

students has found that this transition often brings about heavier episodic drinking, greater marijuana use, more sexual partners, and higher morbidity and mortality rates than found among peers who are the same age but not enrolled in college classes. As students leave their childhood homes, towns, and (in some cases) friends, they are forced to begin making decisions concerning how they spend time that parents or other guardians may have formerly made. This increased independence is only one of the many psychological processes associated with the major transition of moving out and into an institution of higher education. Social scientists have observed and analyzed these factors contributing to campus property crime through many different theoretical lenses. For example, Travis Hirschi’s social control theory holds that people are inherently deviant. An inner connection to society keeps them from committing crimes and weakening that bond. Thus it can be assumed that if a person commits a property crime on a college campus, that individual’s bond to society has been somehow weakened. In line with social control theory, the best way to prevent college property crimes would be to strengthen students’ ties to the new social environment they find themselves in at the start of their first semester. Strong resident hall programming, mentoring programs, and other social events can help students feel connected to the school and lessen their likelihood of hurting their society by destroying campus property or committing other types of crime. Another theory commonly applied to the study of crime is Ronald Akers’ social learning theory. Akers maintains that people are not inherently deviant or compliant, but rather neutral. He suggests that each person is as likely as the next to be deviant and commit a crime, as determined by that individual’s external environment. Rejecting the idea that connectedness to society is the only way to fight an internal tendency to be deviant, Akers points to the various influences on a person as he or she develops into an adult in predicting who will more likely to be deviant and commit a crime. Research analyzing social learning theory links this perspective with Bandura’s aforementioned modeling theory, as both point to outside influences as key in a child’s future actions. While Akers’ theory still places power in the hands of those influencing the developing student, it does not claim that individuals naturally lean toward deviance. Embracing this viewpoint would encourage college staff to pay attention to students’ backgrounds. Akers would encourage staff to mentor students, learning which gaps have been left by their upbringing and working to fill those gaps with healthier activities than property crime and other forms of deviance. Following Akers’ reasoning, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory encourages an analysis of the various influences on a person. Bronfenbrenner divides these influences into five systems, each growing in its distance from the individual: the microsystem (closest to the person), the mesosystem, the exosystem, the macrosystem, and the chronosystem (furthest from the person). This

371

372

Property Crimes, College

approach meshes well with social learning theory, as both perspectives examine what has and is influencing the person in question. By mapping out exactly which influences are acting on the student, it becomes clear which are negative and need to be distanced more from the student, and which are positive and could potentially unite to reach the student and help with the issues he or she is dealing with. For example, a deviant peer group who encourages the student to drink irresponsibly and write graffiti on school buildings can be distanced, whereas friends and resident assistants living in the residence hall who enjoy other legal, healthy activities can be sought out and encouraged to reach out to the student. Addressing college property crime is a task that requires a deeper understanding of the issues college students are dealing with, the importance of the competing influences on students, and the various theories and the solutions they offer in reducing and eliminating campus property crimes. Students who commit property crimes are expressing themselves in an unhealthy and illegal way for a reason. They have come from a specific home, grown up within a specific culture, and found themselves within a specific peer group at the college campus. A crisis precipitated by a property crime presents college staff with an opportunity to use the contact to intervene and prevent future crimes. College staffs have a difficult task in raising the public’s confidence in their ability to maintain safe campuses, as free as possible of all types of crime. The future holds great potential for reaching deviant students at a key point in their lives, thereby helping improve society as whole in doing so. Meghan McHaney Further Reading Bandura, A., & Kupers, C. (1964). Transmission of patterns of self-reinforcement through modeling. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69, 1–9. Corbin, W., Fromme, K., & Kruse, M. (2008). Behavioral risks during the transition from high school to college. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1497–1504. Darling, N. (2007). The person on the center of circles. Research in Human Development, 4, 203–217. Jennings, W., Gover, A., & Pudrzynska, D. (2007). A descriptive study of campus safety issues and self-reported campus victimization among male and female college students Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 2, 191–208. Larsson, D. (2006). Exposure to property crime as a consequence of poverty. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 7, 45–60. Meldrum, R., Weerman, F., & Young, J. (2009). Reconsidering the effect of selfcontrol and delinquent peers: Implications of measurement for theoretical significance.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46, 353. Muuss, R. (1976). The implications of social learning theory for an understanding of adolescent development. Adolescence, 11, 61.

Property Crimes, High School

Payne, A., & Salotti, S. (2007). Comparative analysis of social learning and social control theories in the prediction of college crime. Deviant Behavior, 28, 553–573. Warr, M. (2002). Why peers are important/ factors of peer companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Property Crimes, High School The term “property crime” typically refers to a crime wherein a piece of property such as a purse, a motor vehicle, or a building is intentionally damaged, stolen, or destroyed. For instance, arson, auto theft, burglary, embezzlement, larceny, shoplifting, and vandalism can be considered property crimes. It is important to note, however, that more precise definitions of what constitutes a property crime vary. There are differences of opinion among criminal justice experts, practitioners, and agencies as to whether all criminal action that involves property should be considered and treated as a property crime.

Students walk toward the outside of the concrete and iron-barred wall of Jordan High School in Los Angeles on October 9, 1996. The high school installed the iron bars on the top of the wall to deter vandalism. (AP/Wide World Photos)

373

374

Property Crimes, High School

As a case in point, crimes such as the counterfeiting of currency or the forgery of a check involve an economic loss but are not commonly considered to be property crimes. In the annual Crime in the United States reports, which is generated using a research program most commonly known as the Uniform Crime Reports, the only types of property crime analyzed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. The FBI does not treat robbery as a property crime because the crime involves either the threat of force or the use of force against the victim. In addition, the FBI does not provide data on many types of property crimes such as fraud and vandalism in the Crime in the United States reports. Whatever definition is used, it is clear that property crimes are more common than violent crimes. For instance, every year in the United States, there are more burglaries than murders. The same holds true for school crimes. Although highly violent school crimes such as school shootings receive a great deal of attention from the media and the general public, such crimes are rare. Likewise, even though many students may be more fearful of being violently attacked by a classmate than of having something stolen from their locker, juveniles are actually more likely to have something stolen from them than to be violently attacked while on school property. However, some research suggests that minor forms of school violence such as bullying and non-injurious assault are as common as property crimes. Among the many types of property crime that may occur at school, such as arson, auto theft, property theft, and vandalism, the most common property crimes are theft and vandalism. Reports of the prevalence of theft vary, but several scholars have found that the theft of personal property such as clothing, electronic devices (e.g., cell phones), money, and school supplies is a common occurrence in schools. The theft of inexpensive items such as batteries, classroom de´cor, pencils, and pens is so common that most students, teachers, and administrators probably never even report such incidents. The most recent figures available from the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice show that 86% of high schools and 69% of middle schools experience some type of theft and that 68% of high schools and 43% of middle schools experience thefts that are serious enough that the incidents are reported to the police. There are no quality state or national data on vandalism in schools. Nevertheless, one can ask any teacher or school administrator about the vandalism of school property, and they will likely say the problem is routine. For instance, graffiti is a common feature in many schools; it can often be found throughout a school on student desks, library tables, laboratory tables, lockers, walls, and bathroom stalls. Another common problem in many schools is the negligent treatment and intentional destruction of school property such as library books, textbooks, computers, calculators, beakers, and microscopes. In addition, common horseplay such as tossing items around in a classroom can result in the destruction of school

Property Crimes, High School

property such as clocks, light fixtures, and windows and thus may be considered as a type of vandalism. Although school property crimes do not receive the same attention from scholars or policymakers as do violent school crimes, property crimes on school grounds are a serious problem. In addition to the considerable costs associated with repairing and replacing damaged or stolen property, the general unsightliness of damaged and destroyed property may contribute to an increase in the level of disorder in a school. As originally suggested by Wilson and Kelling (1982) in their classic article “Broken Windows,” in areas where the destruction and vandalism of property is not immediately fixed, there is often an increase in such crimes. As the vandalism spreads, the level of disorder increases. When people see that no one cares enough about the property to fix the damage (i.e., that people have no stake in the general well-being of their surroundings), the overall quality of life decreases and the rate of crime increases. It is hard to take pride in one’s community when the streets are littered with abandoned cars, the buildings are covered with graffiti, and the few existing businesses have iron security bars covering their windows. Decent law-abiding citizens who reside in such areas often live in constant fear, while the drug dealers, gang members, pimps, and prostitutes engage in criminal pursuits with impunity. Similarly, when students attend poorly maintained schools that plagued by broken windows and graffiti, they may feel little connection to or concern about their school. It is hard to take pride in one’s school when the lockers are broken, the bathrooms are covered with graffiti, and the textbooks are in tatters. Some research indicates that the weaker a youth’s bond to the school, the greater the likelihood that the youth will engage in criminal and delinquent activity. As the school environment deteriorates, the learning process suffers because there tends to be an increase in student crime, nondelinquent students become concerned about victimization while at school, and students become fearful of even attending school. Ben Brown Further Reading Brown, B., & Benedict, W. R. (2005). Student victimization in Hispanic high schools: A research note and methodological comment. Criminal Justice Studies, 18, 255–269. Dinkes, R., Cataldi, E. F., Lin-Kelly, W., & Snyder, T. D. (2007, December). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2007 (NCES 2008-021/NCJ 219553). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics and U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2008). Crime in the United States: 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

375

376

Public Health Approach

Felson, M. (1998). Crime and everyday life (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Hanke, P. J. (1996). Putting school crime into perspective: Self-reported school victimizations of high school seniors. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 207–226. Jenkins, P. H. (1997). School delinquency and the school social bond. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 337–367. Welsh, W. N. (2003). Individual and institutional predictors of school disorder. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1, 346–368. Welsh, W. N., Stokes, R., & Greene, J. R. (2000). A macro-level model of school disorder. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37, 243–283. Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982, March). Broken windows: Police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly, 249, 29–38.

Public Health Approach Too often, violence in general, and school violence in particular, is handled punitively. Law enforcement personnel are often involved in such cases, and harsh punishments may be doled out to offenders. While there are certainly some benefits to this approach, some advocate for a different focus. A public health approach sees juvenile violence as an epidemic that must be addressed in the same way that an infectious disease or injury would. A public health approach encompasses far more preventive work and entails community collaborations involving activists, educators, social services, mental health and medical professionals, and law enforcement. It was not until the late 1970s that anyone discussed a public health approach to violence. Mark Rosenberg, director of public health services at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), advocated for the inclusion of community violence in the Surgeon General’s national public health agenda (in 1979). One year later, the Federal Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration organized a symposium on violence as a public health issue. Physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, and academicians all attended. Five years after the symposium, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop sponsored a conference on the issue, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) began publishing reports using a public health lens to discuss youth violence. This idea gained further popularity in 1991 with the publication of Deborah Prothrow-Stith’s Deadly Consequences: How Violence Is Destroying Our Teenage Population and a Plan to Begin Solving the Problem. Prothrow-Stith, a physician, saw prevention of disease as the highest calling in her field. Troubled by the young people she was seeing in the emergency who had been victims of violence, she was moved to initiate efforts to prevent youth violence. Prothrow-Stith advocates for health education in the classroom, community-based health

Public Health Approach

education, and hospital screenings for risk factors. During the 1990s, she worked with child advocacy groups and community and political leaders to move these ideas into action. She also advised the Children’s Defense Fund, helping this organization create the Black Community Crusade for Children’s Task Force on violence. The CDC recommends four steps to a public health approach: (1) define the problem; (2) identify risk and protective factors; (3) develop and test prevention strategies; and (4) assure widespread adoption. Public health professionals use a variety of approaches to help prevent violence. For example, multisystemic therapy (MST) involves closely monitoring the places where a youth spends most of his or her time, such as in the home, in the neighborhood, at school, and with peer groups. Students receive personal counseling, and parents are trained as well. Domestic violence advocates have implemented a public health approach through the DELTA (Domestic Violence Prevention and Leadership Through Alliances) program, which requires funded programs to build a collaborative community response to prevent dating and domestic violence. The California-based Prevention Institute sponsors a number of public health programs designed to prevent violence and reduce injury. Similarly, the Global Campaign for Violence Prevention is a good source of information about a public health approach to violence prevention. A difficulty with these strategies is that they require tremendous organization and groups willing to collaborate. They are not short-term solutions, but rather require ongoing effort to succeed. Critics contend that they are suitable in urban communities, but not necessarily in rural areas that are less equipped with medical professionals and social services agencies. Politicians may not disapprove of these strategies, but often find it difficult to support a public health approach if it is perceived as being soft on crime. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Finley, L. (Ed.). (2007). Encyclopedia of school crime and violence. Westport, CT: Praeger. Preventing violence and reducing injury. (n.d.). Prevention Institute. Retrieved from http://www.preventioninstitute.org/focus-areas/preventing-violence-and -reducing- injury.html Prothrow-Stith, D. (1991). Deadly consequences: How violence is destroying our teenage population and a plan to begin solving the problem. New York: HarperCollins. The public health approach. (n.d.). Global Campaign for Violence Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/public_health/ en/index.html

377

378

Punitive Responses, College

The public health approach to violence prevention. (2006, September 19). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved May 5, 2010, from http:// www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/PublicHealthApproachToViolencePrevention.htm

Punitive Responses, College College students are at the stage of developmental transition from adolescents to adults. For many, entering college also means moving away from their families and, as a result, fewer restrictions on their activities. For these reasons, the college experience can be associated with increased risk for a variety of psychosocial problems, such as substance abuse. As an additive behavior, alcohol and drug abuse increases the prevalence of campus violence, such as impaired driving, assault, fighting, dating violence, and bias-related violence. Additive behaviors, such as alcohol use and binge drinking, caused negative consequential problems. To limit or reduce alcohol-related harms on college, campuses often implement and enforce policies that restrict and punish use of alcohol (and drugs). Colleges typically use state and federal laws as a basis for designing their own policies to deal with campus problems. The application of regulatory mandates to college alcohol and drug use started with the federal Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (DFSCA) of 1989. The DFSCA, which applies to all U.S. colleges, specifies that “as a condition of receiving funds or any other form of financial assistance under any Federal program, an institution of higher education (IHE) must certify that it has adopted and implemented a drug [and alcohol] prevention program” (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). Therefore, to fulfill DFSCA requirements and retain funding, colleges must provide students with institutional standards of conduct that explicitly prohibit illicit drugs and illegal alcohol use, a description of potential legal and institutional sanctions for substance use violations, a description of health risks posed by drugs and alcohol, and a listing of available treatment options. The DFSCA mandates that schools must make written drug and alcohol policy available to students on an annual basis, but it did not establish standards for concrete content of these policies. In turn, the contents of such policies vary significantly from institution to institution. In most colleges, alcohol and gambling policies are usually listed both on college websites and in students’ handbooks, which are distributed to all incoming freshmen. Generally, those policies include the following aspects: 1. Underage drinking is strictly prohibited. 2. There are rules about where on-campus students can drink and how much alcohol is available.

Punitive Responses, College

3. Students with alcohol-related problems are mandated to enter recovery programs. 4. Problematic drinkers can be forced to withdraw from college. 5. College students and employees who commit other acts prohibited by college policy are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment or expulsion. 6. College students and employees who commit crimes may be reported to law enforcement authorities. The ultimate goal of college administrators is to provide a safe atmosphere for students. College punitive policies on alcohol use and other behaviors help control the level of binge drinking and related violence. The punitive reaction to college is also consistent with the American faith in the power of the law to correct bad behaviors. Through the practice of “boundary maintenance” via restrictive and punitive policies, colleges hope to promote a higher degree of conformity among students, while publicizing those behaviors that will not be tolerated. The idea is to deter students from involvement in dangerous behavior. Most campuses have also instituted punitive responses to sexual assault and harassment, with the intent of deterring incidents. Legislation such as the Federal Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act requires colleges and universities to develop appropriate sanctions for students who have committed sexual offenses. Current college administrators have also noticed the limitations inherent in punitive policies, and many are working on implementing prevention-oriented programs to complement the punishment-oriented policies. Multiple stakeholders, including students, faculty, parents, and counselors, should be recruited to work together for preventing violence. Many campuses have turned to harm reduction campaigns in addition to punitive responses. These campaigns aim to educate students on the prevalence of socially injurious behavior, and to inform them of ways to reduce the impact of this behavior, such as the use of designated drivers. Nevertheless, some types of offenses, such as cyber-related bullying, harassment, and stalking, are less likely to be punished, because not all colleges and universities have kept pace in addressing the threat posed by new technologies. Hui Huang Further Reading Fisher, B., & Sloan, J. (2007, Eds.). Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives (2nd ed.) Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Fronius, T., & Kyung-Shick, C. (2009). Analytical assessment on cybercrime deterrence among college students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology.

379

380

Purdy, Patrick

Potter, R., Krider, J., & McMahon, P. (2000). Examining elements of campus sexual violence policies: Is deterrence or health promotion favored? Violence Against Women, 6(12), 1245–1362. Shaffer, H., Donato, A., LaBrie, R., Kidman, R., & LaPlante, D. (2005, February 9). The epidemiology of college alcohol and gambling policies. Harm Reduction Journal, 2(1), 1–20. U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (DFSCA) and drug and alcohol abuse prevention regulation. Retrieved December 11, 2010, from http://www.higheredcenter.org/mandates/dfsca

Purdy, Patrick Patrick Purdy had a history of arrests, mental illness, and alcohol-related problems— but no one could have predicted that he would massacre schoolchildren in the small farm city of Stockton in northern California. On January 17, 1989, Purdy, age 24, fired 106 rounds of ammunition from an AK-47 assault rifle equipped with a 75-round ammunition drum. He sprayed these bullets at Cleveland Elementary School, killing five students, and wounding 29 others plus one teacher, in less than two minutes. The children who died from Purdy’s attack were all Southeast Asian refugees. Three girls—Ram Chun, age 8; Sokhim An, age 6; and Oeun Lim, age 8—were Cambodian, as was one boy—Rathanan Or, age 9. The other girl who died, Thuy Tran, age 6, was from Vietnam. At the time of the shooting, the neighborhood in which the school was located was 68.6% Asian. Purdy was born November 10, 1964. His father, Patrick Benjamin Purdy, was stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington. His mother, Kathleen Toscano, filed for divorce when Purdy was three years old and moved the family to California after her husband threatened her with a weapon. Toscano then married Albert Gulart, Sr., although the marriage lasted just six years. Patrick attended Cleveland Elementary School from kindergarten through third grade. Twice in December 1973, Child Protective Services took Purdy and his two siblings into custody after a neighbor reported neglect. As a child, Purdy was described as very quiet and lacking coping skills. Neighbors remember him as weird and violent. Joan Capalla, who lived near Purdy when he was a child, recalled the boy chasing her sons with a wooden-handled butcher knife. He developed an alcohol problem as a teenager and was kicked out of his mother’s home for hitting his mother when he was 13 or 14. When he was 14 years old, Purdy lived with a foster parent, who told officers she feared him because he had knives and guns. Purdy lived on the streets for a while, attending high school only sporadically. Between 1980 and the shooting in 1989, Purdy was arrested numerous times. His first arrest was for prostitution. He also was arrested for selling drugs,

Purdy, Patrick

possessing illegal weapons, receiving stolen property, and being an accomplice to an armed robbery. In 1986, he vandalized his mother’s car because she refused to give him money for drugs. When he was almost 22, Purdy told a mental health professional that he had destructive thoughts and was considered to have an antisocial personality. Despite his problems, he never received any long-term mental health intervention. Purdy’s friends described him as a nice guy, although they said he was often frustrated and angry. In fall of 1987, Purdy began taking welding classes at San Joaquin Delta College. He complained that there were too many Southeast Asian students there. In 1988, Purdy held a series of jobs and drifted from Oregon, to Texas, to Connecticut, to Tennessee, before returning to Stockton and renting a room at the El Rancho Motel on December 26. It was during these travels, on August 3, that Purdy purchased the AK-47 he used in the shooting, for $349.95. On January 17, 1989, Purdy dressed himself in a camouflage shirt with the words “PLO,” “Libya,” and the misspelled “Death to the Great Satin” written on the front. Before leaving his hotel room, he lined up 100 green plastic soldiers and small tanks, weapons, and jeeps in his hotel room, placing them on shelves, on the refrigerator, and elsewhere. He had carved the words “Freedom,” “Victory,” and “Hezbollah” (a Shiite Muslim group) into his bayoneted rifle. At approximately noon, Purdy parked his car behind Cleveland Elementary School. He set it on fire with a Molotov cocktail, then entered the school. Purdy hid behind a group of portable classrooms and shot at the students. When he ran out of ammunition, he shot and killed himself with a pistol. The California Attorney General concluded that Purdy hated minorities and blamed them for his horrible life. He selected Southeast Asians simply because he had the most contact with that group. Captain Dennis Perry of the Stockton Police Department said that Purdy was obsessed with the military. The school opened the following day, with workmen attempting to patch the 60 bullet holes in the building and scrub the bloodstains from the floors. Only one-fourth of the school’s 970 students were in attendance. The school brought in psychologists and nurses, as well as interpreters, to assist the traumatized students. Purdy’s rampage prompted legislative efforts—at both state and federal levels— to restrict the use of assault weapons. The California state legislature moved quickly to enact the nation’s first ban on assault weapons. This legislation banned the sale, production, and possession of certain types of assault weapons. The Stockton incident, coupled with a deadly shooting at a San Francisco high-rise office building in 1993, also prompted the U.S. Congress to pass the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1994. This ban was part of a larger crime control bill called the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. It prohibited 19 types of semi-automatic weapons, including the AK-47, Uzi, Colt AR-15, and Street Sweeper, as well as copies or

381

382

Purdy, Patrick

duplicates of these named weapons and ammunition clips that hold more than 10 rounds. Also banned were any weapons with two or more of a list of military features, including grenade launchers and flash suppressors. A 1999 study by the US Department of Justice National Institute of Justice (NIJ) found that the ban did, indeed, help keep assault weapons away from criminals. According to a 2004 study commissioned by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the assault weapons ban reduced the number of deaths from assault weapons by 66%. Despite this research showing its effectiveness, Congress and President George W. Bush allowed the ban to expire in 2004. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. (2004). On target: The impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Retrieved July 19, 2009, from http://www .bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/on_target.pdf Phillips, R. (2009, January 18). Purdy recalled as bigot and “sick, sick man.” Retrieved July 19, 2009, from http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20090118/A_NEWS/901170304 /-1/A_SPECIAL0252 Reinhold, R. (1989, January 19). After shooting, horror, but few answers. New York Times. Retrieved July 19, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/ 19/us/after-shooting- horror-but-few-answers.html?pagewanted=all Reuters. (2009, January 15). Twenty years since a nightmare: Stockton, CA shooting of 35 led to strengthening of gun laws. Retrieved July 19, 2009, from http://www .reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS226787+15-Jan-2009+PRN20090115

R Race and School Crime and Violence Research about victimization trends among racial or ethnic groups has often been hampered by use of different definitions, different measurements, and different samples. Native American and Asian students have rarely been included in such studies, even though the limited research on the subject suggests Native Americans are particularly vulnerable to such crime and violence. According to the U.S. Department of Education, white male high school seniors are twice as likely to bring a weapon to school as black male seniors. Among all major racial and ethnic groups, blacks are the least likely to bring weapons to school. In fact, all of the high-profile rampage school shooters in the 1990s were white males. Despite the fact that school violence had long been an issue of concern in urban districts with largely minority populations, it was not until the problem spread to suburban and rural areas that it was perceived as critical by the general public. There is very little difference in the levels of victimization at urban, suburban, and rural schools. A recent study found that racial and ethnic groups were victimized at rates similar to their proportion in the population, but that Asian Americans and African Americans were most likely to report being bullied or harassed because of their race. Another exception was that white students were overrepresented as victims of sexual harassment. Despite these data, the general public often believes that black, urban students are the most violent. One source of this misconception is the media. Research has repeatedly demonstrated that media sources disproportionately highlight cases in which blacks are offenders. When whites are offenders, more time is devoted to explaining why the incident may have occurred than when blacks offend. The implication is that black violence is to be expected, while white violence is unusual and must be explained. Media portrayals of violent minorities may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

383

384

Race and School Crime and Violence

Some evidence suggests that certain educators already assume African American students to be deviant. In May 2009, parents of nine African American students filed suit in Alabama, saying their children were harassed by teachers, who called them “niggers” and “filthy trash,” and were told they would not be allowed to run around the school “like a bunch of wild animals.” These students had been suspended for multiple days for offenses such as not having their shirts tucked in properly, not wearing a belt or wearing the wrong kind of belt, and wearing the wrong-color undershirt. The staff at the school used corporal punishment against the students when they ran in the halls or talked in class; when their parents complained, the students received even more punishment. The parents were also banned from school and threatened with arrest for complaining. Because the school board in that district prohibits public speaking related to racial discrimination at its meetings, the parents have had trouble bringing the issue to the public’s attention. Research has shown that coverage of school violence differs tremendously when it is minority offenders who are involved. Whereas reports about the Columbine High School massacre, for instance, emphasized that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were from “good” families and thus their actions were difficult to explain, coverage of Jeff Weise’s shooting on the Red Lake reservation in Minnesota emphasized the overall violence and poverty of the Native American– dominated region. Although data do not support the contention that black and Hispanic students are more violent than their white counterparts, these groups do face disproportionate rates of punishment. In a nationally representative study conducted by Education Insights at Public Agenda, 19% of white students, 26% of Hispanic students, and 33% of black students reported that their schools were not consistent in applying discipline. According to U.S. Department of Education data, African American students account for 17% of all pupils enrolled in public schools, yet make up 32% of all students who receive out-of-school suspensions. White youth constitute 63% of public school enrollees, but only 50% of those suspended or expelled. In 2001, the American Bar Association (ABA) voted in favor of abolishing zero-tolerance laws in schools, based on these policies’ lack of effectiveness and discriminatory application. Almost 90% of public schools in the United States have some form of zero-tolerance policy in place, and evidence shows such policies are most likely to be adopted in districts where the majority of the student body is African American and/or Latino. On May 20, 2009, Marshawn Pitts, a 15-year-old African American special needs student, was walking down the hallway of his school in Dolton, Illinois, when a school police officer noticed that his shirt was untucked. The officer began shouting at Pitts, who immediately started to tuck in the shirt. He was not fast enough, however: The officer pushed Pitts into a locker, punched him repeatedly

Race and School Crime and Violence

in the face, and then slammed him to the ground and pushed his face into the floor. While Pitts lay on the floor, the officer put him in a hold position that has been banned in eight states because it has resulted in more than 20 deaths. Pitts was left with a broken nose and a bruised jaw. Even worse, he and his classmates were left confused, scared, and angry. The entire incident was captured on school video cameras and has been uploaded on YouTube. Pitts was not carrying a weapon, nor did he in any way threaten anyone. Other high-profile cases, like that involving the 1999 Decatur Seven, in which seven African American males were expelled for fighting, and the Jena Six, in which six African American males were criminally charged for beating a white male after nooses (symbolic of lynching) were hung up at the local school, further highlight the racial divide. One of the consequences of such racially discriminatory policies is what has been called the “school-to-prison pipeline.” Between 2000 and 2004, the Denver Public School System saw a 71% increase in the number of students referred to law enforcement, with many of the referrals for nonviolent offenses. Some schools, like those in the Palm Beach County (Florida) system, have created their own police forces. When students are suspended or expelled, it also affects their acquisition of educational credentials, as these students are more likely to drop out of school altogether. Corporal punishment in the United States disproportionately affects African American students and, in some areas, Native American students. In the 2006– 2007 school year, African American students made up 17.1% of the national student population, but 35.6% of those paddled. In the same year, in the 13 states with the highest rates of paddling, 1.4 times as many African American students were paddled as might be expected given their percentage of the total student population. Although girls of all races were paddled less often than boys, African American girls were nonetheless physically punished at more than twice the rate of their white counterparts in those 13 states during this time period. Laura L. Finley Further Reading ACLU lawsuit challenges racial discrimination in Alabama school district. (2008, May 22). American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved September 23, 2008, from http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/edu/35436prs20080522.html Casella, R. (2001). “Being down”: Challenging violence in urban schools. New York: Teachers College. Fennin, P., & Rose, J. (2007). Overrepresentation of African American students in exclusionary discipline: The role of school policy. Urban Education, 42(6), 536–559. Ferguson, A. (2000). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of black masculinity. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

385

386

Ramsey, Evan

Fine, M., Burns, A., Payne, Y., & Torre, M. (2004) Civics lessons: The color and class of betrayal. Teachers College Record, 106(11), 219–223. Giroux, H. (2009). Brutalizing kids: Painful lessons in the pedagogy of school violence. Truthout. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from www.truthout.org /10090912?print Giroux, H. (2009). Ten years after Columbine. Counterpunch. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from www.counterpunch.org/giroux04212009.html Giroux, H. (2009), Youth: Beyond the politics of hope. Truthout. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from www.truthout.org/1013092?print Hyman, I., & Snook, P. (1999). Dangerous schools. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Hirschfield, P. (2008). Preparing for prison? The criminalization of school discipline in the USA. Theoretical Criminology, 12(79), 79–101. Kupchik, A., & Ellis, N. (2008). School discipline and security: Fair for all students? Youth & Society, 39(4), 549–574. Leavy, P., & Maloney, K. (2009). American reporting of school violence and “people like us”: A comparison of newspaper coverage of the Columbine and Red Lake school shootings. Critical Sociology, 35, 273–292. Miller, J., Like, T., & Levin, P. (2002). The Caucasian evasion: Victims, exceptions, and defenders of the faith. In C. Richey-Mann & M. Zatz (Eds.), Images of color, images of crime (2nd ed.), pp. 100–114). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. (n.d.). Dismantling the school-to -prison pipeline. Retrieved September 29, 2008, from http://www.naacpldf.org /content/pdf/pipeline/Dismantling_the_School_to_Prison_Pipeline.pdf A violent education: Corporal punishment of children in U.S. public schools. (2008). New York: Amnesty International.

Ramsey, Evan At the age of 16, Evan Ramsey was the perpetrator of a deadly school shooting at Bethel Regional High School in the small town of Bethel, Alaska, on February 19, 1997. On that day, he killed 15-year-old Josh Palacios, a popular student, as well as the school’s principal Ron Edwards, age 50. After wounding several other students, Ramsey then threatened to kill himself with the 12-gauge shotgun he had used to kill the two mortally wounded individuals, but he ultimately surrendered to the police instead. Ramsey did not have a stable family life growing up. The son of a father in prison and an alcoholic mother who was in several abusive relationships, Evan and his two brothers were taken away from home by the Division of Family and

Ramsey, Evan

Youth Services. He was in third grade at the time. After that, the brothers were separated and put in different foster homes. Ramsey lived in 11 foster homes as a child, and suffered from sexual and other kinds of abuse in a few of them. An eerie parallel has been noted between Evan and his father—Evan’s father was involved in a similar incident before Evan’s school shooting. When the Anchorage Times did not publish a political letter Don Ramsey wrote in 1986, he came to the office with an AR 180-223 semi-automatic gun. Both father and son said after their incidents that they had been ready to die. Don also surrendered to police, and was released from prison two weeks before Evan’s school shooting took place. A psychiatrist discovered that Evan had previously tried to commit suicide as a child. By the time he was in high school, Ramsey was smoking marijuana and getting bad grades. His friends told reporters that he was often depressed and quiet, but he would talk a lot when you got to know him. However, Ramsey claimed that no one knew how he felt; they did not know the pain and rejection he had inside him. He described how, throughout most of his student life, he was teased and tormented by other students, who would hang toilet paper on him, spit on his head, and call him names. When the torment first began, Ramsey would tell his teachers and the principal; when the bullying persisted, the principal simply told him to ignore it. Ramsey, however, said he could no longer take the abuse. Although Ramsey blamed his actions on a number of sources, including the bullying he received, his parents and teachers, and the foster care system, he also said there were certain people he just wanted to kill, comparing his hatred of them to Hitler’s hatred of Jews. A 17-year-old witness noted that Ramsey looked like he was enjoying the shooting during the event. In an interview, Ramsey claimed that after the shooting, he felt good and believed that he let go of his pain and hate through his violent actions; he felt like he had worked out his problems. Friends and teachers of Ramsey portrayed him as having uncontrolled anger, noting that he had previously thrown garbage cans, pushed people, and punched a hole in the wall of one of his foster homes. One factor thought to have contributed to the attack was the video game Doom, which was also believed to have played a role in the Columbine massacre and other school shootings. Ramsey and his friends James Randall and Matthew Charles would play Doom together for hours after school. In Doom, players shoot and kill each other. His friends Randall and Charles, both age 14 at the time, encouraged Ramsey in his plans to attack the school, and one helped him learn to use the gun. Randall and Charles even told other students of what Ramsey was planning, though no one shared this information with authorities who could have prevented the attack. Instead, Ramsey said students encouraged him to go forward with his plans, even giving him suggestions about which students to target and taking pictures to

387

388

Ramsey, Evan

remember the event. This pattern is not out of the ordinary; according to a study by the Department of Education and the Secret Service, when people know of a possible school shooter, only 4% tell anyone, and 81% of school shooters do tell other people about their intentions. On the day of the shooting, Ramsey hid the shotgun he had taken from his foster home in his loose pants when he went to school. The details in reported in various sources are inconsistent, but Ramsey claims that many news sources portrayed the shooting in a way different from what really happened. Many sources claimed that Ramsey went after Palacios and shot him, and that he then tracked down the principal at his administrative office and killed him there. Other sources and Ramsey himself say that both people died in a common area in the school, and that he had not picked Palacios specifically as a target. It is unclear whether Ramsey intended to kill the principal. A number of students came to watch the shooting from an area above the common area, as they knew something bad was going to happen, although it is unclear if they knew exactly what. Ramsey had told these students he was going to have an “evil day,” and he told those whom he liked to stay away from the common area that day. Police said part of the rationale for the shooting was for Ramsey to get back his CD player, which the principal had taken away. Ramsey told his friends he would get the device, and then would start shooting. It was reported that before he started shooting, Ramsey angrily asked everyone in the common area why they would not just leave him alone. Palacios intended to try to stop Ramsey by getting up and talking to him, which incited Ramsey to shoot him. When the principal then came up behind him to see what was going on, Ramsey turned around and shot him. His wife was nearby and cradled him as he died. Ramsey then ran yelling that he did not want to die. More than 10 years later in an interview, Ramsey said that he had intended only to kill himself; he stated that he wanted to torture his tormentors—by dying in front of them—but not kill them. However, he claimed that his friends convinced him that he might as well kill others if he was going to kill himself. Ramsey also claimed that he did not realize shooting someone would kill the person at the time. He had thought the situation would be like a video game, in that the person would be alive and get back up, instead of dying. He also said later that at the time he did not think of the consequences of his actions, but only of fixing his problem in the present moment. Now years after the attack, Ramsey has said he regrets his actions on that fateful day. He feels that prison life is worse than his battles when he was dealing with bullies as a teenager. He even wishes that one of his friends who knew about his plan had turned him in, so that the crime would not have happened. Ramsey has stated that he over-reacted about the bullying. Many people now sympathize with Ramsey because he was only a teenager at the time of his crime, but will spend the rest of his life in prison for something he regrets.

Religion and High School Crime and Violence

In 1998, Ramsey was tried as an adult and charged with two counts of firstdegree murder, one count of attempted murder, and 15 counts of assault. On December 2, 1998, he was sentenced to 210 years in prison. James Randall and Matthew Charles were tried as juveniles as both provided support for Ramsey. Both have been released from prison. Ramsey has received hundreds of letters from other teens who felt the same way he had felt before the shooting. The letters describe teens who were picked on, who felt they had nowhere to turn, and who had no one listening to them. Ramsey told many people that he planned to kill himself, but no one helped or reported his threats. Now he wants to help others avoid his mistakes. Sharon Thiel Further Reading Avila, J., Holding, R., Whitcraft, T., & Tribolet, B. (2008). School shooter: “I didn’t realize” they would die. Retrieved December 17, 2008, from www .Abcnews.go.com Coloroso, B. (2004). The bully, the bullied, and the bystander. New York: HarperCollins. Flowers, R., & Flowers, H. (2004). Murders in the United States. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland. Lieberman, J., & Sachs, B. (2008). School shootings. New York: Kensington. Magestro, S. (n.d.). The warning signs: Evan Ramsey—Bethel, Alaska. Retrieved from http://www.susanmagestro.com/SchoolShootings.html

Religion and High School Crime and Violence The role of religion in high school crime and violence has taken many forms. In some cases, it has been used as inspiration for heinous acts of physical violence and contentious episodes of verbal intolerance. In other instances, religion has functioned as a means of lessening the threat of crime and violence on high school campuses around the country and around world. Historically speaking, religiously motivated crime and violence at the high school level is by no means a 20th-century or 21st-century phenomenon. Within the American context, Protestants and Catholics, in times past, have clashed over issues of curriculum, often resulting in periods of religious bigotry or even brute violence that enveloped not only a particular school, but in some cases the entire surrounding community. In today’s world, incidents of religiously motivated crime and violence seem few and far between. According to most experts, the vast majority of the current crime and violence at the high school level is attributed to gang activity, hazing,

389

390

Religion and High School Crime and Violence

bullying, or simply peer pressure. While acts of high school crime and violence are rarely influenced by religion—at least directly—there have been some incidents in recent history that have had distinctly religious underpinnings. On April 20, 1999, two high school seniors named Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold walked into the cafeteria of their school in Littleton, Colorado, and opened fire, killing 12 people and injuring 21. What became known as the Columbine massacre forever altered the United States’ understanding of school violence. In the aftermath of the killings, law enforcement attempted to reconstruct the ideology of the perpetrators. The official report revealed that on the list of people Confrontation resulting from religious intolerance whom Klebold and Harris disliked— is often provoked by an outward expression of which included working women, someone’s faith. Muslim women are often homosexuals, racial minorities, and targeted because they wear a hijab as part of their athletes—were Christians. This relifaith. (iStockPhoto) gious hatred manifested itself during the carnage when, it was reported, Klebold executed self-proclaimed Christians as they professed their faith. The Columbine shootings are a rare and extreme example of religiously motivated violence at the high school level. Most forms of crime and violence that involve religion are often more verbal than physical. In the increasingly pluralistic societies of the United States and Europe, high schools, and their European equivalents, have become the locations for numerous acts of religious intolerance. While students of many faiths encounter intolerance on a daily basis, Muslim students— especially females—have experienced the brunt of these attacks. More often than not, these moments of confrontation center on the outward expression of many women’s Muslim identity, the wearing of the headscarf known as the hijab. In countries such as France, the United Kingdom, and post–September 11 America, there have been numerous incidents in which students have chastised a fellow female student for wearing the hijab to classes. There have also been other, more controversial episodes where teachers and school administers have required female Muslim students to remove the hijab before entering the classroom or school facility.

Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP)

Whether physical or verbal, high school crime and violence has the attracted the attention of many members of America’s religious communities. Not only have Muslim American organizations worked hard to fight post–September 11 discrimination, but other groups, including a number of evangelical Christian organizations, have reacted to school crime and violence by petitioning for the reinstatement of school prayer. For many of these evangelicals, the increase in high school crime and violence is directly related to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to disallow sanctioned prayer in the public school system—one aspect of what they see as a general “removal of God” from the classroom. Although often overlooked in favor of more quantifiable categories, religion, as either a motivating or reactionary force, has and will continue to inform our conversations on crime and violence at the high school level. Jonathan William Olson Further Reading Benn, T., & Jawad, H. (Eds.). (2003). Muslim women in the United Kingdom and beyond. Boston, MA: Brill. Fraser, J. (1999). Between church and state: Religion and public education in a multicultural America. New York: St. Martin. Juergensmeyer, M. (2000). Terror in the mind of God: The global rise of religious violence. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Larkin, R. (2007). Comprehending Columbine. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Odell-Scott, D. (2004). Democracy and religion: Free exercise and diverse visions. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP) The Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP) began in 1985 as a collaborative program between the New York Public Schools and the New York City Chapter of the Educators for Social Responsibility. The professionals affiliated with RCCP believe that violence is one of the chief social ills affecting children and their ability to learn. RCCP has two stated goals: to teach children ethical and moral values that emphasize respect for others; and to provide students with the emotional and social skills necessary to handle potentially disruptive situations. Key components of RCCP’s approach include the following measures: • Conflict Resolution Curriculum: The RCCP curriculum for elementary schools is built around 51 lessons or workshops. Each workshop includes a

391

392

Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP)

warm-up exercise, review of the agenda for the specific lesson, activities, student evaluation of the session, and closing activity. The secondary school curriculum covers material similar to that provided in the elementary school curriculum but with an additional focus on ways of de-escalating volatile situations that might lead to violent confrontations. RCCP lessons include role playing, group dialogue, and brainstorming. The curriculum address root causes of violence by establishing “multicultural classrooms.” • Peer Mediation: RCCP seeks to reduce violent incidents in schools through a model of peer mediation. Student mediators facilitate a meeting between those involved in a particular conflict and help both disputants find a mutually satisfactory solution. A good resolution gives both disputants the responsibility for finding a solution. • Professional and Parent Training: RCCP uses both formal training sessions and one-on-one work to teach regular classroom teachers how to present the conflict-resolution curriculum. RCCP instructors provide 20 hours of introductory training in a series of after-school sessions. The training presents the RCCP philosophy and the curriculum; teaches communication, conflict resolution, and intergroup relations skills; and demonstrates “infusion” strategies for integrating these concepts and skills into social studies, language arts, and other academic subjects. A key to RCCP’s success is the follow-up support that teachers receive. Each new teacher is assigned to an RCCP staff developer, who visits between six and 10 times a year, giving demonstration lessons, helping the teacher prepare, observing classes, giving feedback, and sustaining the teacher’s motivation. In addition, the staff developer convenes bimonthly follow-up meetings after school so that the teachers can receive additional training, share their experiences, discuss concerns, and plan school-wide events. During a teacher’s second year, the staff developer visits only two or three times. RCCP staff recently launched a Parent Involvement Program, which they piloted and are slowly expanding in Community School District 15 in Brooklyn, where RCCP began. Under this program, a team of two or three parents per school is trained for 60 hours to lead workshops for other parents on intergroup relations, family communication, and conflict resolution. Wendell Johnson Further Reading DeJong, W. (1994). Building the peace: The resolving conflict creatively program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Restorative Justice

Lantieri, L., DeJong, W., & Dutrey, J. (1996). Waging peace in our schools: The Resolving Conflict Creatively Program. In A. Hoffman (Ed.), Schools, violence, and society. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Restorative Justice Restorative justice, while a relatively recent, and still somewhat marginal, component of modern criminal justice systems, has long been part of efforts to respond to and prevent crime within a variety of local communities. Approaches in criminology, such as restorative justice and peace-making criminology, express the value of collective efficacy or “social capital,” in which strong community networks of social support and informal social control contribute to reducing occurrences of crime. Restorative justice emphasizes effective practices for dealing with crime, based on consensual, interactive, and participatory approaches; this perspective stands in contrast to the more familiar adversarial models of justice, based on retribution and punishment, that make up the overwhelming part of criminal justice system practice. Proponents of restorative justice note that punishment-centered models of crime control are both ineffective and costly, both in human and resource terms. Prisons are wildly expensive systems for containing and managing people who have been targeted for criminalization. Even more disturbingly, incarceration has long been shown to offer few positive or constructive outcomes for those who are so punished. Advocates of restorative justice note that harsh prison sentences, at most, provide victims of crime with a sense of revenge or vindication. Punishment models do little to assist or support victims who may have been multiply impacted by a criminal event or events. Put simply, systems oriented primarily toward punishing offenders offer little to those who have been victimized by crime. Restorative justice is concerned with rebuilding relationships after an offense, rather than driving a wedge between offenders and the community, such as occurs within criminal justice systems in capitalist liberal democracies. Restorative justice allows victims, offenders, and the community to address the harms done by crime, so that the community, rather than being further torn apart and pitted against itself, can be repaired. Rather than imposing decisions about winners and losers in an adversarial system, restorative justice seeks to facilitate dialogue among those affected by an incident. All parties with a stake in the offense come together to deal collectively with it. Restorative justice acts on a range of general principles. First is the view that both victim and the community have been harmed by an offender’s actions, and this damage causes a disequilibrium that must be addressed to restore relations,

393

394

Restorative Justice

lest more social harm be done. Counter to traditional criminal justice system approaches, offenders as well as victims and the community are seen as having a stake in a successful outcome of this process. Second, those who have offended have some obligation to address the harm they have caused. Third, restorative justice emphasizes the healing of both victim and offender. Victims need information, understanding, safety, and social support. Unlike in the standard criminal justice system, offenders’ needs are also addressed, including social security, health care, possibly treatment for addictions, and counseling. Whereas conventional criminal justice focuses on the offense to the state by individuals and does little to deal with the consequences to the community and its members, restorative justice emphasizes rebuilding community trust and “social capital” as means to defend against future conflicts and offenses. As Brennan (2003, p. 2008) suggests, “Restorative justice builds on social capital because it decentralizes the offense from merely the act of an offender breaking the law, to a breach in a community’s trust in its members. This in turn allows the community along with the offender and victim to collectively look for a resolution.” One particular approach to restorative justice is drawn from the practice of indigenous sentencing circles. Within these healing circles, a broad range of community members are involved in the justice process to reintegrate offenders into the community, rather than pursuing the segregation model of the penal approach. Unlike adversarial processes as are practiced within the court system, sentencing circles seek solutions to the original conflict and possible underlying causes while working cooperatively to repair relationships harmed by the criminal act. Sentencing circles have been adopted within the criminal justice system in Canada as one option available to members of indigenous communities. Peace-making criminology argues that the idea of making war on crime needs to be replaced with the idea of making peace on crime. Bracewell identifies the motivating themes of peace-making criminology as follows: “(1) connectedness to each other and to our environment and the need for reconciliation; (2) caring for each other in a nurturing way as a primary objective in corrections; and (3) mindfulness, meaning the cultivation of inner peace” (Lanier & Henry, 2004, p. 330). This approach emphasizes the responsibilities that members of society have as active participants in maintaining and restoring positive social relations. Like other versions of restorative justice, it calls upon community members to address issues of crime and community health and safety directly through their own involvement rather than deferring to the power of instituted authorities. Restorative justice is no utopian wish. In fact, there have been attempts to employ this approach within several jurisdictions as a means to deal with even extremely violent crimes. Research suggests that restorative justice shows clear effectiveness, in terms of both offender accountability and victim healing.

Roberts, Charles

Instead of escalating the violence in an already violent society by responding to violence and conflict with state-sanctioned violence and conflict, through police and penal actions, society needs to de-escalate violence. With this approach, practices of conciliation, mediation, and dispute settlement become preferable options. Peace-making criminologists, including anarchist-influenced Hal Pepinsky, argue that reducing violence requires people’s direct involvement in democratic practices. By this, Pepinsky means “a genuine participation by all in life decisions that is only achievable in a decentralized, nonhierarchical social structure.” Providing community support for offenders benefits all in the community and injects fairness into the practice of justice. Restorative justice offers the prospect of escaping the “zero-sum game” of the traditional criminal justice system, whereby what is said to benefit victims must necessarily hurt offenders. In restorative justice, victim, community, and offender all stand to gain in their own ways. Jeffrey Shantz Further Reading Brennan, L. (2003). Restoring the justice in criminal justice. Detroit: Wayne State University, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies. Lanier, M., & Henry, S. (2004). Essential criminology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press O’Grady, W. (2007). Crime in Canadian context: Debates and controversies. Don Mills: Oxford University Press. Parker, L. (2009, May 22). Schools. Retrieved May 5, 2010, from http://www .restorativejustice.org/programme-place/02practiceissues/schools-1 Restorative justice in school. (2007). Retrieved May 5, 2010, from http://www .transformingconflict.org/Restorative_Justice_in_School.htm Umbreit, M., Coates, R., Vos, B., & Brown, K. (2002). Victim offender dialogue in crimes of severe violence: A multi-site study of programs in Texas and Ohio. Minneapolis: Center for Restorative Justice, University of Minnesota.

Roberts, Charles On October 2, 2006, Charles Carl Roberts IV killed five Amish girls and himself in an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Roberts was not Amish, although he lived near the Amish community in Lancaster. As part of his job, the 32-year-old milk truck driver would come to Amish farms to pick up milk. A father of three, Roberts tied up the girls in the schoolhouse, allegedly with the intention of sexually molesting them. Instead, he killed them and himself when the presence of the police led him to change his original plan. Eleven out of the

395

396

Roberts, Charles

Charles Roberts likely chose to attack an Amish school near his home in 2006 not because of religious prejudice, but rather because of the lack of building security at the school. (Richard Gunion/ Dreamstime.com)

26 students at school that day were girls, students aged 6 to 13. Three girls died at the school, and two died later at the hospital. Fatally shot in the head were Marian Fisher, age 13; Anna Mae Stoltzfus, age 12; Mary Liz Miller, age 8; her sister Lena Miller, age 7; and Naomi Rose Ebersole, age 7. Six other girls were in critical condition, some with gunshots in their heads, although none of them died. The Lancaster County incident was the third fatal school shooting in a week within the United States. The two previous shootings had taken place in high schools: one in Bailey, Colorado, by a 53-year-old man, and one in Cazenovia, Wisconsin, by a student. Many felt Roberts’ shooting mimicked the incident in Bailey, as that shooter also was older and not a student, took the students hostage, and kept only the girls in the classroom, allowing the boys to leave. Also, these incidents are the only two school shootings where a sexual intention was involved. However, Roberts bought his supplies before the Colorado shooting took place, and police felt he was only thinking of himself and his internal struggle, so it is unclear if he was really copying the earlier shooting.

Roberts, Charles

Many considered the shooting to be the outcome of an ongoing struggle within Roberts relating to events in his past. During the attack on the school, he talked to his wife Marie over the phone and told her he had sexually abused children related to him 20 years earlier, when he was 12, and stated that he had been thinking about molesting children again. The children involved in the earlier crimes were between the ages of 3 and 5. According to one of the suicide notes he left for his family, Roberts also seemed intent on carrying out revenge toward God for letting his baby, Elise, die. Roberts and his wife lost their daughter 20 minutes after she was born early in 1997, nine years before the shooting. In the suicide notes, Roberts described how he never really got over Elise’s death. He wrote about how frequently he would be sharing happy moments with his family, but then would think about how Elise was not there to share the joy with them and would become angry. Roberts stated that he hated both God and himself, and felt empty. In the weeks leading up the shooting, his wife did not think Roberts was acting in an unusual manner. His coworkers, however, indicated that Roberts was acting differently the week before the shooting, and that his mood had changed. Despite this, neither the coworkers nor his wife suspected that Roberts had any violent plans. He had no previous criminal record, and he was described by family and neighbors as a nice man. Everyone who knew him thought he was a peaceful man, but they did not know he had secret sexual fantasies related to children. Marie said he was a very good husband and father to their three children, and she had never known about the molestation of his relatives until Roberts told her during the attack. The Amish community also never expected any incidence of school violence. Because of the peaceful lifestyle of the Amish and the rural nature of the area they live in, they were not prepared for an attack of this nature. They had no security to prevent it, and no one would have even envisioned such a possibility. The Lancaster County event was not a spur-of-the-moment crime; Roberts thoroughly planned the attack before he carried it out. He had a checklist of the supplies he brought into the school, all of which were checked off. Also, investigators say he bought the items six days before he went to the school. Although many speculated the attack was a revenge killing, especially because of Roberts’ suicide notes, police investigators believed it was a sex crime ending in suicide. Roberts had been watching the school after his shifts at work, and he likely picked an Amish school as a target because he knew it would not have good security. Rather than targeting the Amish community, Roberts likely focused on the presence of young girls—and the Amish school was an easy and nearby mark in that regard. Police believe he began shooting because he panicked when police surrounded the building. Roberts brought three firearms with him that day—a rifle, a shotgun, and a semi-automatic pistol. He also had knives, an abundance of ammunition, a stun

397

398

Roberts, Charles

gun, and a bag of tools, suggesting that he was planning to hold the girls for a long time and that he may have intended to sexually assault the girls. Among the items he brought were KY Jelly lubricant and restraints, including a large board with eyebolts spaced apart, seemingly to bind girls to it. Before the attack, Roberts went to work until about 3 A.M. He took his children to their bus stop, and then went to the Amish school. He closed himself in the school, blocking the doors with pieces of wood he brought with him. No detail was ignored. When he had all of the students in the school together in one classroom, Roberts let all the boys leave and bound the girls’ feet. He also let a pregnant teacher leave, along with three other adult women who had infants with them. According to a sociologist, Amish parents are usually the teachers in the schools. Roberts went into the school at about 10:00 A.M. Two adults who were told to leave the school called 911 at 10:36 A.M. from a nearby farmhouse. Police got to the site at 10:45 A.M. and surrounded the school. At some point during his time at the school, Roberts spoke to his wife on the phone; Marie had found the suicide notes when she came home after attending a morning prayer group. Roberts then called the police, who had surrounded the building, and told them that if they did not leave he would shoot people within 10 seconds. True to his word, he started shooting soon thereafter. Roberts’ wife was shocked by what he did, claiming he was a wonderful husband and father and stating that the incident was unlike him. In a statement, she told the public to pray for the families who lost their children in the attack as well as to pray for her own family. After the attack, the Amish community reacted much differently than mainstream America has responded to other school shootings. Instead of implementing new laws and stricter preventive measures, the Amish community has been practicing forgiveness. Eleven days after Roberts attacked the school, the Amish community tore the building down. The Amish community decided to start fresh with the school, just as they had with their lives. Sharon Thiel Further Reading Amish forgive, pray and mourn after shooting. (2006). CBS. Retrieved December 14, 2008, from http://cbs13.com Fifth girl dies after Amish school shooting. (2006). CNN. Retrieved December 17, 2008, from http://cnn.usnews.com. Lieberman, J., & Sachs, B. (2008). School shootings. New York: Kensington. Police: School killer told wife he molested family members. (2006). CNN. Retrieved December 17, 2008 from http://cnn.usnews.com. Turvey, B., & Petherick, W. (2008). Forensic victimology. Maryland Heights, MO: Academic Press.

Rural School Violence

Rural School Violence Crime and violence in rural schools and communities are widespread, yet occur in relatively minimal amounts in comparison to crime and violence in urban areas. Mistaken beliefs about “crime-free” rural communities and an underdeveloped rural criminology research base pose significant challenges to ensuring school safety in rural locales. Crime and violence rates among young people are highest in rural communities with higher levels of ethnic diversity, female-headed households, and residential mobility. Community size is also positively associated with rural juvenile crime, whereas community poverty level is not a significant predictor of school crime and violence in rural places. Data from the School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) show that nearly seven in 10 (69.5%) rural schools reported a violent incident without a weapon during the 2007–2008 school year and 14.4% experienced at least one violent incident with a weapon in that year; almost half (47.1%) of rural schools had at least one theft. Actual violent crimes in rural schools are slightly more common than threats of violent crimes. SSOCS data indicate that more than 8% of rural schools had at least one student threat of physical attack with a weapon in 2007–2008; 42.8% reported a threat of attack with a weapon in that same span. Several types of nonviolent offenses occur routinely in rural schools. For example, bullying occurs at least weekly in 21.7% of rural schools. Daily or weekly incidents of student racial or ethnic tensions occur in 3.4% of rural schools, sexual harassment occurs daily or weekly in 2.4% of rural schools, and classroom disorder occurs regularly in 2.2% of rural schools. Vandalism occurs at least once per school year in 38.6% of rural schools. Three percent of rural schools reported a hate crime during the 2007–2008 academic year, and 2.7% reported at least one gang-related incident. Relatively few rural schools have ever experienced extremist activity (2%). Rural youth use and abuse illegal substances—including drugs, alcohol, and tobacco products—more often and at younger ages than their urban and suburban peers. More than one-fifth (21.2%) of rural schools had at least one incident of distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs during the 2007–2008 academic year; 13.9% reported at least one incident of alcohol distribution, use, or possession. Nonverbal disrespect toward a teacher occurs at least once a week in 5.4% of rural schools, while verbal abuse of a teacher occurs daily or weekly in 3% of rural schools. Teachers have been threatened with injury in 6% of rural schools, while physical attacks against teachers have occurred in 3% of rural schools. Thirtyone percent of rural teachers say that student misbehavior interferes with their teaching. Rural schools employ a variety of violence prevention strategies, including personal counseling (in 89.2% of schools), individual mentoring (85.7%), behavioral

399

400

Rural School Violence

modification (84.6%), violence prevention curricula (83%), recreational enrichment activities (80)%, community-building activities (70.3%), and violence prevention hotlines (23%). More than half of rural schools have written crisis response strategies for bomb threats (89.8%), school shootings (80.3%), hostage situations (68.7%), and suicide threats (71.3%). Acts of violence in rural schools are most often punished by out-of-school suspensions, which occur in 43.5% of cases, and very rarely by expulsion without alternative services, which occurs in 6.7% of cases. Christopher J. Stapel Further Reading Dinkes, R., Kemp, J., & Baum, K. (2009). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2009 (NCES 2010–012/NCJ 228478). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, & Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neiman, S., & DeVoe, J.F. (2009). Crime, violence, discipline, and safety in U.S. public schools: Findings from the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2007– 08 (NCES 2009–326). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Osgood, D. W., & Chambers, J. M. (2003). Community correlates of rural youth violence. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Van Gundy, K. (2006). Reports on rural America: Substance abuse in rural and small town America. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, Carsey Institute.

S Saari, Matti On September 23, 2008, 22-year-old culinary arts student Matti Saari stormed into Seinajoki University of Applied Sciences in Kauhajoki, Finland, at approximately 10:50 A.M., armed with a Walther .22 pistol and several bombs and wearing a ski mask. He shot and killed 10 people—nine students and his teacher. Three people escaped the classroom. Before committing suicide, Saari called a friend and said he had just murdered 10 people and that, after he died, he wanted to be cremated. He died at Tampere University Hospital several hours later. The shooting took place during an exam Saari was to be taking. After he shot his friends and teacher, Saari set them on fire. All of the bodies except one were burned beyond recognition. Survivors said that Saari methodically killed the students one by one and appeared to be enjoying it, having a big smile on his face. A friend who was with the young man the night before said he seemed normal and that the two discussed the exam. Saari did mention that he had been interviewed by police about a YouTube video he had posted of himself firing a gun. Others described Saari as an outsider who was not very social. He spent hours surfing the web and was obsessed with guns. He had also been seeing a psychologist. A friend said that Saari told him that he thought the Virginia Tech massacre and perpetrator Seung-Hui Cho were great. Saari had idolized his brother, who died of a heart attack in 2003. This loss seemed to have triggered the worst in him. The same friend whom Saari called right after the massacre said he had been talking about killing people for approximately 18 months, but that he assumed Saari was kidding. Investigator Jari Neulaniemi said police had found a message at home saying Saari intended to kill as many people as possible. Police suspected that Saari had been in contact with Pekka-Eric Auvinen, the 18-year-old who shot eight people at Jokela High School in Tuusula, Finland, the previous year. This relationship was later confirmed. The two had played war games together online

401

402

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act

and plotted their attacks. They were on the same team in an Internet war game called Battlefield 2, in which they detonated bombs, shot people, and used headsets to communicate. They even bought their guns at the same weapons store, called Tera-asekeks, a few hundred yards from the school where Auvinen killed eight people and himself in November 2007. Auvinen had also posted a YouTube video about his plans, and both he and Saari has frequently expressed their hatred for humanity. Subsequent reports revealed that Saari had been kicked out of the army in 2006, after only one month in the service. He scared his superiors and his peers by firing his weapon without orders. Fellow recruits who worked with him described Saari as weird and quiet, and said he had been teased and bullied. After the massacres, one school was evacuated and others feared copycat shootings. Residents of Kauhajoki were terrified. In response to Auvinen’s and Saari’s massacres, Finish Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen said he was considering whether tougher gun laws were needed. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Allen, N. (2008, September 26). Finland school shooting: Gunman Matti Saari made phone call during slaughter. Telegraph. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/finland/3083996/Finland -school-shooting-Gunman-Matti-Saari-made-phone-call-during-slaughter.html Anglesey, S. (2008, September 23). “YouTube killer” shoots ten dead in spree at Finnish school. The Mirror. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.mirror .co.uk/news/latest/2008/09/23/youtube-killer-shoots-10-dead-in-spree-at-finnish -school-115875-20749489/ Pettifor, T. (2008, September 25). Finland school gunman Matti Saari shot friends then set them on fire. The Mirror. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www .mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/09/25/finland-school-gunman-matti-saari -shot-friends-then-set-them-on-fire-115875-20751552/

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994 (SDFSCA) is federal legislation designed to help school districts create safe, disciplined, drugfree learning environments. In 1989, President George H. W. Bush and the governors of all 50 states recognized the need for safe schools and set goals to help the United States achieve this in the coming years. When President William J. Clinton took over the White House in 1993, he continued to work on these goals. His administration created goals aimed at achieving schools that were free of the

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act

presence of weapons and drugs. The Clinton administration recognized that teachers cannot teach and students cannot learn to their full potential in an unsafe and undisciplined school environment. Education reform was a key focus during the Clinton administration, as U.S. leaders understood that successful education of citizens is necessary for the country to compete in a global marketplace. Students need to be proficient in subjects such as mathematics and science; for this to happen, however, a safe learning environment for students to study in is required. Students need to be able to come to school without fear. If they worry about the presence of weapons and drugs everyday, or get involved in the use of drugs or weapons, students will not be able to focus properly on their studies. The U.S. Department of Education has worked closely with state educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) to create safer school environments. President Clinton’s signing of the SDFSCA bill in 1994 represented a huge step toward achieving these goals. The SDFSCA provides financial assistance to 97% of all school districts in the United States, delivering funds used for more than 40 million students. These funds are a huge source of support for drug and violence prevention in schools. The SDFSCA also distributes funds to states depending on the state’s school-aged population and relative share of Title I funds. Governors spread out these funds for numerous causes. Much of the additional funds are used for preschoolers, school dropouts, juveniles, and teenage parents. The governor of each state must also use a portion of the funds to work with law enforcement agencies. For example, schools often bring in law enforcement officials to educate students on drugs and weapons. Furthermore, SEAs must distribute their SDFSCA funds to LEAs based on rates of alcohol and drug use among youths, arrests and convictions of youths, illegal gang activity, and other issues in a particular locality. The SDFSCA has specific sections on accountability, mandating that SEAs and LEAs must establish measurable goals for their drug and violence prevention programs. These agencies must also decide how they will report any progress made. When LEAs apply for SDFSCA funding from SEAs, SEAs can reject their applications or place restrictions on the use of given funds if planned activities do not follow the goals of the SDFSCA. SEAs must monitor the activities of LEAs and provide assistance when needed. The SDFSCA authorizes additional national programs that work to create safe, disciplined, and drug-free schools. One such program is seeking to develop alternatives to expulsion. When a student is expelled for the possession of drugs or weapons, the SDFSCA wants to provide education for these students in a different way. Another program is looking into the pros and cons of establishing school uniform policies. The Department of Education, working with the Center for Handgun Control, had agreed to distribute videos that deal with the consequences of youths handling handguns. The Department of Education has also agreed to

403

404

Safe Schools/GLSEN

work with the Department of the Treasury to trace handguns and eliminate sources of weapons. These programs are just a few examples of many being implemented to achieve safer school environments. Approximately a year after President Clinton signed the SDFSCA legislation into law, he made a statement announcing that significant progress has been made in schools throughout the United States. He acknowledged that the country still needs good parents and supportive communities to achieve even more, but praised his administration for its commitment to ensuring safety in schools and on the progress it has achieved thus far. Subsequent presidents have continued to support the legislation and have continued funding for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Arthur Holst Further Reading Black, S. (2004). Safe schools don’t need zero tolerance. Education Digest, 70(2), 27–31. Casella, R. (2003). Zero tolerance policy in schools: Rationale, consequences, and alternatives. Teachers College Record, 105(5), 872–893. Modzeleski, W. (1996). Creating safe schools: Roles and challenges, a federal perspective. Education and Urban Society, 28(4), 12–23. Stader, D. (2006). Zero tolerance: Safe schools or zero sense? Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 6(2), 65–75.

Safe Schools/GLSEN At the forefront of the safe schools movement is GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), a national organization founded in 1995 by a former teacher, Kevin Jennings, who served as the group’s executive director for its first 13 years. The mission of GLSEN is to ensure safe schools (K–12) for all students by ending harassment and bullying directed at those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered (GLBT). In addition to providing educational resources, the organization sponsors a number of annual national events, conducts or sponsors research on the extent of school bullying and harassment, helps establish or register gay/straight alliances (student clubs), and assists in the passage of Safe Schools laws. The four annual “Days of Action” coordinated by GLSEN are the Day of Silence, Ally Week, TransACTION, and Martin Luther King Organizing Weekend. The Day of Silence is an empowering exercise for middle and high school students that asks them to be silent by choice—that is, to raise their voice against homophobia by refusing to speak. Ally Week asks students to take a stand against bullying, harassment, name calling, and other offenses directed toward

Safe Schools/GLSEN

GLBT students. Students sign pledge cards to not use anti-GLBT language and to safely intervene in situations where harassment is occurring. TransACTION’s purpose is to encourage allies for transgendered individuals, through panel discussions, workshops, and other activities. Martin Luther King Organizing Weekend aims to teach coalition building between the safe schools movement and other social action groups. Besides the four Days of Action, GLSEN and Simon & Schuster Children’s Publishing annually organize No Name-Calling Week. Thousands of middle and elementary schools participate in this event, in which teachers use their lesson plans to teach about the consequences of name calling and to work toward its elimination. GLSEN also maintains the ThinkB4YouSpeak website, which encourages its visitors to enter an original alternative in place of the expression “That’s so gay.” Two major research publications by GLSEN are From Teasing to Torment: School Climate in America and The 2005 National School Climate Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Youth in Our Nation’s Schools. GLSEN’s studies have found that the presence of antidiscrimination policies enhances self-reported feelings of safety by students and that sexual orientation ranks second only to one’s appearance or body size as the reason for experiencing harassment. GLSEN has registered approximately 4,000 gay/straight alliances (GSAs)— student clubs dedicated to creating safe and tolerant school climates for every student regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. The first GSA was formed in 1988 by a straight student with the help of her teacher, GLSEN’s founder. In addition to its work in assisting coalitions in getting safe-schools laws passed, GLSEN has drafted a model law serving as an example of a well-constructed statute enumerating protected classes (among them those defined based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression). By 2008, 11 states and the District of Columbia had passed safe-schools laws protecting sexual orientation, and seven states and the District of Columbia had such laws regarding gender identity/ expression. Joan Luxenburg Further Reading GLSEN: www.glsen.org Harris Interactive & GLSEN. (2005). From teasing to torment: School climate in America, a survey of students and teachers. New York: GLSEN. Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2006). The 2005 national school climate survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: GLSEN.

405

406

Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding

Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of school-based strip searches, determining that a strip search for ibuprofen had violated a student’s constitutional right to privacy. A different student was found with prescription-strength ibuprofen in school and said she received it from Savannah Redding. Redding was a quiet, 13-year-old honor student at the time of the incident. No drugs were found as a result of the search of Redding, which she called “the most humiliating experience of my life.” Justice David Souter wrote the majority opinion for the 8-1 decision. The Court held that a strip search was far too intrusive for a violation of school policy. Further, the court determined that while schools have a legitimate responsibility to keep drugs off campus, strip searches are not a legitimate means to do so. Justice Souter observed that the evidence against Redding was weak, there was no specific reason to believe she had contraband stashed in her underwear, and the medication involved was relatively harmless—400-mg ibuprofen pills, equivalent to two Advil tablets. Based on the accusation by her classmate, school officials first checked Redding’s backpack and outer clothes. The court felt these two searches were reasonable, but determined that the school made “a quantum leap” in taking the next step, which involved stripping Redding to her underwear and asking her to shake them out so that her breasts and pelvic area were exposed. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was especially troubled by the trauma a young girl would experience after enduring this type of intrusion at the hands of a Savannah Redding walks down the steps of the trusted official. In making its decision, U.S. Supreme Court building after her court the Court exempted from liability the hearing in Washington D.C., on April 21, 2009. assistant principal who ordered the Redding was strip-searched at her school when search, asserting that perhaps he did she was 13 years old, after being accused by not know his actions were unconstituanother classmate of possessing and sharing prescription-strength ibuprofen. (AP/Wide World tional and thus it was a good-faith Photos) exception.

Save the Children

Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter. He asserted that school officials acted logically in searching Redding’s underpants. He also stated that decision in the case virtually ensured more students would hide drugs in their underwear, as they would now deem it the safest location for contraband. Prior to the ruling in Redding, lower courts had heard numerous cases on strip searches of students, sometimes affirming the procedure and at other times finding it unconstitutional. For instance, a strip search of a female high school student for drugs was found to be lawful based on several factors, including a tip from another student, an incriminating letter found in a classroom, a teacher’s report of strange behavior, and her own father’s concern about her drug use. Because the Court’s ruling addressed only strip searches for prescription drugs, it left open the question of whether strip searches for other contraband, such as illicit drugs and weapons, were constitutional. In September 2009, the fall after Redding was decided, an administrator at Atlantic High School in Atlantic, Iowa, was placed on suspension for authorizing strip searches of five female students. The searches were conducted after a student reported $100 was missing from a purse in her locker. No money was found. Iowa law seems to prohibit strip searches, but some argued there were circumstances under which a strip search could be acceptable. On February 25, 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa filed suit requesting the school district make available records indicating what, if any, punishment was imposed on the two school officials who conducted the searches. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Administrator on leave after school strip search. (2009, September 9). KCCI. Retrieved April 8, 2010, from http://www.kcci.com/news/20757778/detail.html Barnes, R. (2009). Student strip search illegal. Washington Post. Retrieved April 8, 2010, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/ 25/AR2009062501690.html?sid=ST2009062504131 Bravin, J. (2009, June 26). Court faults strip-search of student. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 8, 2010, from http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB124593034315253301.html

Save the Children Save the Children is a nonprofit organization that works to ensure lasting, positive changes in the lives of children. The organization works in the United States as well as in Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Middle East. Save the Children’s priorities include helping students be safe, well nourished, and educate.

407

408

Save the Children

In particular, the organization focuses on the world’ most vulnerable and marginalized children. It reaches out to children at risk, including girls, ethnic minorities, children affected by HIV/AIDS, children affected wars and other catastrophes, and children with disabilities. Save the Children provides the following services: • Training community health workers to care for newborns and young children • Protecting vulnerable children from abuse and exploitation • Helping communities in at-risk countries to be prepared in advance of natural disasters • Improving children’s health through regular exercise and nutritious food in the United States Save the Children helps build schools and ensures the education that students receive in them is of the highest quality. The organization focuses largely—though not exclusively—on girls. Two-thirds of the world’s 880 million illiterate adults are women, and 70% of the 125 million children who are not attending school today are girls. Girls are far more likely to leave school due to financial reasons, abuse, disease, and cultural and religious beliefs. For instance, in parts of the Horn of Africa, girls are reluctant to walk to school because many have been abducted on their journey. A dowry system is still in place in the Sahel region of Africa and in some parts of the Middle East that requires girls to leave their studies. In southern Africa and in Asia, the AIDS crisis has left many girls as the head of their broken families; to support their siblings, thy often drop out of school to work. Indigenous girls are among those with the least opportunity. Save the Children works to address these issues, having found that educating girls has a number of benefits: • • • •

Healthier, better-educated children and grandchildren Fewer maternal deaths and reductions in the “younger than age five” mortality rate Delayed marriage and better parenting skills Improved literacy and numeracy skills, leading to greater economic opportunities • More skills and knowledge enhancing women’s self–esteem and the wellbeing of families

Save the Children works with university-based researchers to obtain information about problems affecting children and the most effective interventions. Members of the Save–University Partnership for Education Research (SUPER) include

School Crime and School Climate, College

Columbia University Teachers College, George Washington University, Harvard University, Stanford University, University of Maryland, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, University of Minnesota, University of Pennsylvania, and University of Wisconsin. Projects undertaken by SUPER have focused on the quality of early childhood programs in the Philippines, the safety of students in Malawi, the cost-effectiveness of community schools in Haiti, and ways to ensure girls’ education in Pakistan. Although the organization worked in Haiti prior to the devastating earthquake of January 2010, it has dramatically expanded its efforts in that country since this natural disaster occurred. Save the Children has initiated school readiness programs and health and hygiene programs for both Haitian students and their parents. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Save the Children: http://www.savethechildren.org/

School Crime and School Climate, College Over the past several years, the subjects of bullying and school crime have drawn much attention in the United States, especially as they relate to the increasing incidents of violence recently seen at both the high school and collegiate levels. Studies have shown that one important precursor to potentially lethal incidents of school violence was whether the assailant had been bullied in school during some period and thus wanted to seek revenge. Research into this issue in relation to violent incidents taking place on college campuses is particularly limited, however. Several reports have stated that, contrary to popular belief, bullying occurs among adults of all ages, especially in the workplace. In the college setting, it has been shown that the act of taunting or verbally abuse is not just reserved for students, but is also engaged in by professors or other educators. In a study carried out by Chapell et al., approximately 33.4% of undergraduate college students reported actually seeing one student bully another one to two times, while 29.4% of the sample population reported seeing a professor bully a student one to two times. Nearly 19% of the college students surveyed stated they had personally been bullied by a fellow peer sometime during their undergraduate career. Regardless of age, bullying at any level has been shown to have negative and long-term mental health consequences on a number of levels. Although those persons who are bullied are not always easily identified, it is essential that research and academic communities take the initiative to try to better understand this population.

409

410

School Crime and School Climate, College

There are currently more than 16 million college students enrolled in approximately 4,200 universities and colleges in the United States. Within this population, bullying and acts of violence do not take place solely within the “typical” peer relationships found among individuals that were discussed earlier. Instead, these acts have been seen more frequently in recent times within the romantic or dating relationships found between students. Both physical and sexual violence, which have drawn much more attention in the research community as compared to the general topic of bullying, have been shown to be very common on college campuses regardless of size or location. The incidence of physical dating violence among undergraduate students tends to range anywhere from 16.7% of this specific population to nearly 48% according to past studies. Sexual dating violence rates among college students have been shown to be relatively high as well; indeed, many researchers have claimed that, on average, nearly one in three college women and one in 10 college men has experienced sexual violence at some level. In particular, young women with a family history of physical or sexual violence are more likely to become involved similarly violent intimate relationships during their collegiate years as compared to their adolescent years. Having a productive and nurturing college climate is essential to the success of all students. Without this support, feelings of stress and anxiety on campuses across the nation will continue to increase exponentially. Currently, many students are in a state of crisis due to the climate or environment found at their respective institutions. For example, 90% of college students have reported feeling stressed, 40% stated that they are stressed so much that it often interferes with both their social and academic functioning, and 10% stated that they have contemplated suicide sometime during their collegiate career. Approaches such as putting more emphasis on early identification of suicidal and depressive symptoms and increasing social support are essential to enhancing the culture found on college campuses. Another approach that could be efficiently utilized to enhance the climate found at this institutional level includes increasing the communication among those in leadership at the college or university so that they can better serve their student population. Once supportive approaches, such as those mentioned previously, are deployed, the classroom environment becomes one that encourages learning instead of limiting it. Along with this positive outcome, student motivation may be increased. It might benefit educators to begin to change the mentality that they are the ultimate authority in the classroom as well. If they allow their students to actually have choices and more decision-making privileges, that flexibility can create a selfregulated learning environment during the duration of the course. Professors should also be aware of the additional needs of minority of students and understand how they relate to the college. In the past, studies have consistently

School Crime and School Climate, High School

shown that students of color view the general campus climate more negatively than their white counterparts. A closer look at these data reveals that Latinos and African Americans actually have the most negative views. These feelings often surface in minority students who believe that their particular college or university is not doing enough to recognize and celebrate diversity on the campus as well as in those who contend that their administrators are not committed to creating policies to increase diversity. To create a more welcoming college campus, these sensitive issues must be addressed in an in-depth manner. Ebony Thomas Further Reading Carr, J. L. (2005, February). American College Health Association campus violence white paper. Baltimore, MD: American College Health Association. Chapell, M., Casey, D., De La Cruz, C., Ferrell, J., Forman, J., Lipkin, R., et al. (2004). Bullying in college by students and teachers. Adolescence, 39, 53–65. Chapell, M. S., Hasselman, S. L., Kitchin, T., Loman, S. N., MacIver, K. W., & Sarullo, P. L. (2006). Bullying in elementary school, high school, and college. Adolescence, 41(10), 839–855. Flannery, D., & Quinn-Leering, K. (2000). Violence on college campuses: Understanding its impact on student well-being. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24, 839–855. Graves, K. N., Sechrist, S. M., White, J. W., & Paradise, M. J. (2005). Intimate partner violence perpetuated by college women within the context of a history of victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 278–289. Murray, C. E., & Kardatzke, K. N. (2007). Dating violence among college students: Key issues for college counselors. Journal of College Counseling, 10, 79–89. Pettitt, J., & Ayers, D. (2002). Understanding conflict and climate in a community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26, 105–120. Reid, L. D., & Radhakrishnan, P. (2003). Race matters: The relation between race and general campus climate. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 263–275. Young, A. J. (2007). The challenge to change: Shifting the motivational climate of the college classroom for enhancing learning. College Teaching, 51, 127–130.

School Crime and School Climate, High School Although there is not one commonly accepted definition for school climate in high schools, the vast majority of researchers and scholars suggest that school climate, at its heart, reflects subjective experience in school—that is, how safe and nurtured students and, to some extent, parents and teachers, feel in school. Climate

411

412

School Crime and School Climate, High School

particularly reflects the existence (or absence) of a safe and orderly environment in which to learn. Not surprisingly, then, creating environments free of violence and other crimes is a high priority for schools. Given that one of the important factors in climate is safety, students must feel safe in their school environments if they are to achieve the academic and prosocial goals necessary for them to move forward. Unfortunately, the climates of many of U.S. schools have changed from safe and nurturing to fearful and fraught with violence, both physical and emotional. The reason for these changes is simple: Violence in schools has been increasing in recent years. The potential danger of school violence is exemplified by such incidents as the shootings at Virginia Tech University and Columbine High School. Although these mass shootings have come to define the notion of school violence, they are really only the most egregious examples. Violence in schools is both spectacular, like the aforementioned events, and subtle. The spectacular forms include not only mass shootings, but also gang activity and gang violence. The subtle forms of school violence are exemplified by bullying, both traditional and nontraditional. Nontraditional bullying may take the form of sexual harassment, sometimes resulting in sexual violence, as well as racial and religious harassment. In addition, many young students are bullied and otherwise targeted because of their sexual orientation. Accordingly, the climate in U.S. high schools has evolved from open environments, where students walked freely through the halls, to something resembling armed camps. In the latter environments, schools are replete with airport-like security checkpoints, with weapons detectors and armed security officers roaming the halls. Increasing the safety of the school climate by changing the environment into the “armed camp” model is one method of dealing with violence. Unfortunately, this type of climate is an extreme measure and is counterproductive. Today’s research is seeking to identify which approaches best address physical safety as well as emotional and psychological safety. The subtle forms of violence may actually be more insidiously threatening to the feelings of safety of students because they occur more frequently and are largely undetectable. Teasing, bullying, and gay bashing are some of the more prevalent problems faced by high school students today. The means to address these problems rely on the creation of safe and nurturing climates, where there are clearly delineated guidelines for behaviors and attitudes. Many schools have sought to make their climates safer by emphasizing prosocial learning, mandating counseling, and increasing parental involvement. Educators and law enforcement officials are continually looking for new strategies to address violence and are finding that the climate of the high schools is a key factor in this effort. The most important steps a high school can take in preventing violence focus on both the affective and the physical environment. These measures include promoting a positive school climate and culture, teaching and

School Crime Victimization Survey

modeling prosocial behaviors, and providing effective intervention when antisocial behaviors occur or when individual students demonstrate a propensity for violence. In addition, school-wide prevention and intervention strategies can mitigate threats. Indeed, climate is much more than simply the academic environment. Over the last decade, studies from a range of historically somewhat disparate fields (e.g., risk prevention, health promotion, character education, mental health, and socialemotional learning) have identified research-based school improvement guidelines that can predictably create safe, caring, responsive, and participatory high schools. Over the last two decades, educators and parents alike have learned that school climate—the quality and character of school life—serves to support students’ learning and achievement. Research confirms that a safe and supportive school climate, in which students have positive social relationships and are respected, engaged in their work, and feel competent, matters tremendously. Aviva Twersky Glasner Further Reading American Psychological Association. (2003). Presidential task force on prevention, promoting strength, resilience, and health in young people, American Psychologist, 58(6–7), 425–490. Cohen, J. (2006). Social, emotional, ethical and academic education: Creating a climate for learning, participation in democracy and well-being. Harvard Educational Review, 76(2), 201–237. Freiberg, H. J. (Ed.). (1999). School climate: Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environments. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press. School climate research summary. (n.d.). Center for Social and Emotional Education. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://nscc.csee.net/effective/school _climate_research_summary.pdf School environment affects the potential for violence. (2008, January 1). National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.safeyouth.org/scripts/faq/schoolenviron.asp

School Crime Victimization Survey The School Crime Victimization Survey, which is a supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), estimates the number of students victimized by crime at school, on school grounds, or on the way to and from school. The survey is designed to assist policymakers, researchers, and educational practitioners in making informed decisions regarding crime in schools. The latest report contains data from 6,297 respondents ages 12 to18 who were enrolled in the sixth through the 12th grades in 2005. Four percent of these students

413

414

School Crime Victimization Survey

reported that they had been victims of a crime during the reporting period: 3% were victims of theft and 1% were victims of violent crime (rape, robbery, assault). The survey discovered a positive correlation between the presence of gangs, drugs, and alcohol in schools and the likelihood that a student in that school would be the victim of a crime. Male and female students were equally likely to be victims, although males were twice as likely as females to be the victims of a violent crime at school. Students at public schools were three times as likely to be the victims of theft as students enrolled in private schools. Students who have been victimized at school are more likely to fear attacks, avoid specific places at school, and refrain from participating in extracurricular activities than students who have not been attacked. Other major findings include the following: • The percentage of sixth-grade and seventh-grade (2% and 3%, respectively) victims was higher than the percentage of 10th-grade (1%) victims. • Students living in households with incomes of less than $34,999 were less likely to be the victims of school crimes than students from more affluent homes. • A higher percentage of students receiving grades of “mostly” C’s were victims than were students who received “mostly” A’s or B’s. Comparisons of data from the 1995, 1999, 2001, and 2005 NCVS Crime Incident Reports revealed an overall decrease in the percentage of students reporting at least one instance of criminal victimization at school in the six months prior to the survey. The American public continues to be concerned about crime in the schools, safety of students, and the ways that victimization at school impedes academic success. Crime in the schools negatively affects not only those directly involved in the incident, but also other students, faculty, and staff, and creates an unfavorable academic environment. Findings in the School Crime Victimization Survey identify the scope of victimization and environmental conditions connected with it, and can help concerned parties develop policies that better address the issue of school crime and violence. Wendell Johnson Further Reading Bauer, L., Guerino, P., Nolle, K. L., & Tang, S. (2008). Student victimization in U.S. schools: Results from the 2005 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCES 2009-306). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

School-to-Prison Pipeline

Dinkes, R., Cataldi, E. F., Kena, G., & Baum, K. (2006). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2006 (NCES 2007-003/NCJ 214262). U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2009). National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008 [Collection Year Record-Type Files] [Computer file]. ICPSR25461-v2. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2009-09-11. Doi: 10.3886/ ICPSR25461

School-to-Prison Pipeline While federal studies show that the rate of school-related homicides and nonfatal violence has fallen over most of the past decade, over the same period and perhaps in response to highly publicized incidents of school violence such as the shootings at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech, schools across the United States have adopted zero-tolerance policies to address discipline problems. Zerotolerance policies aimed at reducing school violence and removing children deemed to be “problems” from schools have created alarming levels of school disruption for children—disruption that begins a process moving these children from the school system into the prison system. This process, which entails the criminalizing of childhood classroom disruptions and the increase in attendant schoolbased arrests, disciplinary alternative schools, and secured detention, marginalizes at-risk youth and denies them the very education that could prevent future incarceration. Put simply, it has created a “pipeline” that moves the most vulnerable of school-aged children from the school system to the prison system. Poor children, children of color, children who lack access to medical and mental health care, and those who suffer from abuse or neglect begin their school experiences with multiple strikes against them. Government policies such those espoused under the No Child Left Behind Act, which reward schools for academic achievement and restrict funding for under-achievement, create a climate where struggling children are unwelcome. Racial disparities loom large in school discipline as well, with minority children shown to be overrepresented when it comes to harsh sanctions. Black students have been shown to be more than twice as likely as white students to be suspended from school. In cases of vulnerable populations, learning differences or disabilities may not be detected until the child enters the public school system. Studies have shown that most children who end up in detention facilities have disabilities that would make them eligible for special education services, but only 37% of them have received any kind of services at school, either because the schools failed to identify their disabilities or due to lack of parental awareness of the child’s limitations.

415

416

School-to-Prison Pipeline

Emotional disturbances, which are a qualifier for special education consideration, create particular risks for students, including the worst graduation rates, the highest dropout rates, and higher arrest rates and pregnancy rates than those for these students’ peers. Children with emotional disturbances make up seven out of every 10 children in the juvenile justice system and are three times more likely than their peers to be arrested before leaving school. Almost three-fourths of children with emotional disturbances will be arrested within five years of leaving school. Clearly, the safety needs attached to the very real dangers of school-based violence must be addressed, and real responses are needed for legitimate threats. However, zero-tolerance disciplinary policies represent a “one size fits all” response to school based incidents that impose severe discipline on students without taking into account their individual circumstances. These policies and the resultant suspensions, expulsions, and arrests are often the first step in a child’s journey though the school-to-prison pipeline. Equally concerning are the racial disparities resulting from the enforcement of these zero-tolerance policies. Black children are four times as likely as their white peers to be incarcerated. Black children are almost five times and Latino children more than twice as likely to be incarcerated as white children for drug offenses. Black children are twice as likely as white children to be put in programs for mental retardation, twice as likely to be held back a grade, three times as likely to be suspended, and 50% more likely to drop out of school. While black children make up 16% of the U.S. youth population, they represent 32% of the children in foster care; while minority youth in general make up 39% of the overall youth population, they account for 60% of the children in the juvenile justice system. Studies have reported that as many as three-fourths of all incarcerated children have mental health disorders and one in five has a severe disorder; Latino children show the highest percentage rate of unmet mental health needs. Today 580,000 black males are serving prison sentences in the United States, while fewer than 40,000 black males earn a bachelor’s degree each year. Often, poverty is a factor in incarceration; while wealthier families can provide options such as counseling or private rehabilitation programs, drug counseling, or even military school as alternatives to detention, poor families have limited options—another factor that contribute to their disproportionate representation within the justice system. As early as kindergarten, some children may begin to show signs for potential risk of offending. In particular, the 10% to 11% of children who enter the school system lacking the social skills that would prevent them from arguing or fighting with teachers are at a significantly higher risk for school failure, delinquency, and potential incarceration. Mandatory expulsions for offenses committed by children as young as age five, while intended to make schools safer, may create the

School-to-Prison Pipeline

unintended consequence of pushing children—often the most vulnerable children— into a trajectory of delinquency and incarceration. As concerns for safety grow, a growing number of school districts have begun to rely on police officers to patrol hallways and enforce discipline. These officers often focus on using the legal system to discipline students for conduct that might otherwise be addressed by school programs, counseling, or parent education, thereby moving children from the school yard to the prison yard. Once a child enters the juvenile justice system, reentry into traditional schools can be negatively impacted, initiating a trajectory that may lead toward adult incarceration. Zero-tolerance policies, harsher drug laws, and rigorous gang intervention tactics have all contributed to a broadening of criminal offenses that affect school-aged children. Behavior that historically would have been handled in the principal’s office, such as schoolyard fights, is now being attended to by school-based police officers, who move students directly into the local courts and detention centers. While initial offenses such as truancy, defiant behavior, or fighting might result in a minor punishment, these offenses often begin a paper trail or “record” for the offending child; as these offenses add up over time, the courts’ and school’s reaction to the child’s behavior tend to become harsher. Many areas do not have comprehensive rehabilitation and support programs; as a result, incarceration becomes the only option for at-risk youths. Marginalized children, when labeled by the school system as “deviant” at a young age, may feel that they are not wanted, or valued, or smart—which puts them on a downward spiral from the beginning of their school experiences. Many begin to mentally drop out as early as the third or forth grade, when the academic and behavioral demands of school may outstrip their earlier academic development and home-based support. Lack of mental health support and early intervention for children with severe emotional and behavioral problems and their families, issues of substance abuse, the absence of a positive home-based support system, or a combination of these factors often bring children into the juvenile justice system. The deeper a child gets into this system, the harder it is to get out. Once expelled from the school system, it is difficult for the child to return, making the risk of dropping out of high school a very real possibility. High school dropouts are 63 times more likely to be incarcerated than graduates from four-year colleges, and four times as likely as their peers with a higher education degree to live 125% below the poverty line. The average high school dropout will cost taxpayers more than $292,000 relative to an average high school graduate. Addressing the harsh realities of the school-to-prison pipeline will require a shift in emphasis from punishment to support. This support is necessary even before high-risk children enter the school system. Resources for at-risk families,

417

418

Search and Seizure, High School

including health, nutrition, and mental health support and preschool to give children a more level social and academic entry process into the school system, can contribute to fewer disparities in the classroom. School resources that address the social, developmental, and behavior needs of our most vulnerable children can keep them in school rather than taking them out of the only known indicator for future success. Support for educational deficiencies, combined with a reduction of suspensions, expulsions, and arrests, can minimize disparities in achievement and outcome for all children, but especially those at highest risk. While it is important to keep schools safe for all students, implementing interventions such as mediation, counseling, and conflict resolution as first-line alternatives can contribute keeping all children in mainstream educational environments and help them build the skills they need to realize their full potential. Doreen Maller Further Reading America’s cradle to prison pipeline report. (2007, October 10). Retrieved February 26, 2010, from http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data -publications/data/cradle-prison-pipeline-report-2007-full-highres.html Homeland insecurity. (2009, January). Retrieved February 26, 2010, from http:// www.everychildmatters.org/images/stories/pdf/homelandinsecurity3.pdf School to prison pipeline: Talking points. (2008, June 6). Retrieved February 26, 2010, from American Civil Liberties Union website: http://www.aclu.org/ racial-justice/school-prison-pipeline-talking-points SchooltoPrison.org. (n.d.). Retrieved February 26, 2010, from https://www .schooltoprison.org/ Southern Poverty Law Center launches “school to prison reform project” to help at-risk children get special education services, avoid incarceration. (2007, September 11). Retrieved February 26, 2010, from http://www.splcenter.org/ get-informed/news/splc-launches-school-to-prison-reform-project-to-help-at-risk -children-get-special

Search and Seizure, High School As school officials, parents, and the general public have grown more concerned about crime and violence in schools, one response has been greater use of search and seizure. If students can be searched for contraband, the logic goes, then not only may problems be averted, but the action may serve as a deterrent. While the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines that students do have privacy

Search and Seizure, High School

rights under the Fourth Amendment, subsequent court decisions have shown that these rights can be limited. The first Supreme Court case to deal with school searches was New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985). In that case, T.L.O., a 14-year-old girl at Piscataway High School in New Jersey, was found standing in a haze of smoke. Another girl who was with her admitted she had been smoking, but T.L.O. denied it. The teacher who had found the pair did not believe her, and demanded that T.L.O. see the assistant principal, Theodore Chaplick. Chaplick asked T.L.O. to empty her purse, where he found cigarettes and rolling papers, which could have been used for marijuana. He proceeded to open a zippered enclosure of her purse, where he found a pipe, plastic baggies, some marijuana, and a list of people who owed T.L.O. money. He then read some personal letters he found in her purse. In the case brought before the Supreme Court, T.L.O. contended that none of this evidence should have been used to punish her, as it was obtained through an unlawful search. While affirming that students do have some privacy rights in school, the Court said that schools, acting in loco parentis (or as parents), must ensure that students are safe and that the educational climate is conducive to learning. Further, the Court maintained that recent increases in crime and violence among youth made it all the more important for schools to intervene. Thus the Court set a new standard for school searches, allowing school officials to search students based on reasonable suspicion, rather than the probable cause needed by police officers to conduct a search. To determine if there is reasonable suspicion to search a student, the Court said that two factors would be considered: whether the search was justified at its inception, and whether the intrusiveness of the search was reasonably related to its objectives. The Court decided that both elements had been met in T.L.O.’s case. Over the next decade, concerns about student drug use grew, prompting the next Supreme Court case relevant to school searches. This time the issue dealt with school-based drug testing. In Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, the Court held that drug testing of students as a condition of their participation in school sports was constitutional. In 2002, in Board of Education v. Earls, the Court again heard a challenge to school-based drug testing. This time, the district’s policy was to test all students involved in extracurricular activities. Again, the Court ruled that such testing was not a violation of students’ Fourth Amendment rights. The last school search case that the Supreme Court has heard was Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding in 2009. This case dealt with school-based strip searches. Thirteen-year-old honor student Savannah Redding was stripped down to her underwear and even asked to shake these garments out so that her private parts were exposed. The search was initiated based on the allegation of

419

420

Search and Seizure, High School

another student that Redding had an ibuprofen pill that she had not checked in at the school office—a violation of school policy. No drugs were found. The Supreme Court ruled that this strip search was an unconstitutional violation of Redding’s Fourth Amendment rights. In particular, the court noted the trauma Redding felt when she was being searched. The decision did not address other strip searches, however. In other cases, students have been strip searched based on tips and missing items. In one case, a teenage boy was strip searched because school officials thought his genital region looked larger than normal and suspected that he was “crotching” drugs. Although no drugs were found, a court ruled the search was both justified in its inception and reasonable in scope. In addition to drug testing and strip searches, schools often employ canine searches to detect drugs and weapons. These searches have been considered lawful. Although the dogs cannot sniff at individual students, they can be lead through vacated classrooms, down hallways with lockers, and in school parking lots. Some recent cases have highlighted the fact that these dogs, however well trained, do not always detect contraband. As more districts employ school police officers, the situation becomes muddier, in that it is not entirely clear whether the reasonable suspicion or probable cause standard should be used. If police give school officials a tip but do not conduct the search, for instance, the school officials are generally held to the reasonable suspicion standard. This practice can clearly help law enforcement get around the need to have probable cause before police engage in a search. It has been called the “silver platter doctrine,” in recognition of the fact that law enforcement is handing over the evidence “on a sliver platter” to school officials. Another type of school search involves using metal detectors, either hand-held or walk-through devices. The Supreme Court has not heard a case on this issue, but lower courts have affirmed that metal detector searches in schools are lawful. Critics have expressed concern that these measures do little to keep schools safe but might instead increase fear and anxiety. Further, even when courts do not find searches to be unconstitutional, some believe they do indeed infringe on students’ privacy rights, with great impact. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Alderman, E., & Kennedy, C. (1997). The right to privacy. Santa Rosa, CA: Vintage. Barnes, R. (2009). Student strip search illegal. Washington Post. Retrieved April 8, 2010, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/ 25/AR2009062501690.html?sid=ST2009062504131

Security on Campus, Inc.

Beger, R. (2003). The “worst of both worlds”: School security and the disappearing Fourth Amendment rights of students. Criminal Justice Review, 28, 336–354. Daniel, P. (1998). Violence and the public schools: Students rights have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Journal of Law and Education, 27 (4), 587, Devine, J. (1996). Maximum security. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Finley, L., & Finley, P. (2004). Piss off! How drug testing and other privacy violations are alienating America’s youth. Monroe, ME: Common Courage. Hyman, I., & Snook, I. (1999). Dangerous schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Redden, J. (2000). Snitch culture. Los Angeles, CA: Feral House.

Security on Campus, Inc. Security on Campus, Inc. (SOC), is a national nonprofit organization whose aim is to help campuses maintain safe learning environments. It is supported by both corporate and nonprofit sponsors. To date, SOC has helped achieve legislation

Jeanne Ann Clery’s father, Howard Clery founded Security on Campus, Inc., to ensure that measures are taken nationwide to keep students safe on college campuses. (Marianne Barcellona/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images)

421

422

Sexual Assault Crimes, College

relevant to campus safety and annually compiles data on the safety of campuses across the United States. Additionally, this organization has developed materials and hosts programs to train future college students about safety issues. It also provides expert consultation to colleges and universities seeking to enhance their policies related to campus safety and hosts Clery Act training programs to ensure that staff understand and are compliant with this legislation. Finally, SOC provides advocacy and referral services to victims of campus crime. The first important piece of legislation SOC helped enact was the 1990 Campus Security Act, renamed the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act in 1998 (in memory of Clery, who was murdered in her college dorm room at age 19). The Clery Act requires institutions of higher education to release statistics on campus crime, as well as their security-related policies, to students and staff. This information must be publicized so prospective students can see it as well. Subsequently, SOC helped establish several amendments to the Clery Act. In 1992, the Campus Sexual Assault Victim’s Bill of Rights was enacted. In 2000, SOC helped secure an extension of the “Megan’s Law” notification of registered sex offenders to cover college campuses. In addition to legislation, SOC pushed Congress to dub September “National Campus Safety Awareness Month” in 2008. An important element of SOC’s work is its searchable database, which features information about safety on campuses across the United States. The database tallies rates of eight offenses called “index offenses”: murder/non-negligent manslaughter, negligent manslaughter, forcible sex offenses, nonforcible sex offenses (statutory rape and incest), robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and arson. SOC has created several instructional videos to help campuses reduce the amount of sexual assault and stalking that takes place at institutions of higher education and to provide more useful services for victims. Actress Kristen Stewart, star of the Twilight film series, is featured in some of the videos and in a public service announcement (PSA) that SOC created. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Security on Campus: Inc.: http://www.securityoncampus.org/

Sexual Assault Crimes, College Research has shown that sexual assault on university and college campuses is alarmingly common. Estimates suggest that one in four women who attend a college or university will experience some form of sexual assault in their years

Sexual Assault Crimes, College

of study. While women are most frequently the victims of sexual assault, men also experience various forms of sexual violation. Sexual assault can be defined as a nonconsensual violation of an individual’s sexual integrity. It can take the form of sexual harassment, incest, or sexual abuse. Other terms used to refer to sexual violation include “sexual violence” and “rape.” Rape is considered to be a specific form of sexual assault and is defined as nonconsensual sexual intercourse. Sexual violence, a term that is used within the majority of academic literature, encompasses a broader range of experiences and levels of violence. The term “sexual assault,” in contrast, is used within the legal system to define all attacks that are of a sexual nature, ranging from inappropriate touching to aggravated assault. Historically, acts of sexual assault were not seen as forms of aggression. Instead, they were considered to be types of seduction. From this perspective, rape was seen as a form of sex. The shift toward seeing nonconsensual sexual acts as a type of assault was pivotal in sexual assault becoming a recognized concern within the criminal justice system and for those engaging in academic research. The vast majority of research on sexual assault focuses on women’s experiences as victims of sexual violation. As some academics have suggested, this emphasis is a result of the feminist literature from the 1970s, which sought to highlight the victimization of women at the hands of men. As a result, relatively little research has focused on male survivors of sexual assault. However, since the 1990s, some research on this topic has begun to appear. Myths about sexual assault are often portrayed in popular media. Some of these include the contentions that sexual assault is a rare occurrence, sexual assaults are committed only by strangers, and perpetrators of sexual assault are always abnormal or insane. These myths have been shown to have little bearing on the actual occurrences of sexual assault. As many studies on sexual assault have shown, forms of sexual violation are not rare occurrences, but rather happen frequently, particularly on university and college campuses. Sexual assault has been shown to occur most commonly between acquaintances, friends, spouses, and family members. Despite what the myth of stranger rape dictates, perpetrators of sexual assault are often intimately connected to victims. The term “date rape” has been coined to highlight rape that occurs between individuals who are dating. Many myths specifically surround male-perpetrated sexual assault against women. Such claims include that women often lie about sexual assault and that women’s choices of clothing, manners of walking, and spaces of occupancy are reasons for their assault. These myths have been suggested by many scholars to be heavily rooted in sexism. There are also many myths about males’ experiences of female-perpetrated sexual assault. It is often assumed that the perpetrators of sexual aggression against boys and men are male. However, this is not always the case. Females

423

424

Sexual Assault Crimes, College

can and do rape males. Nevertheless, the vast majority of rapes are male perpetrated. Another common myth about male survivors of sexual assault is that they are homosexual. In reality, research suggests that straight men and boys are just as likely to experience sexualized violence as homosexual males. Rates of sexual assault are problematic to calculate. This difficulty stems from the extremely low numbers of sexually violent acts that are reported to police. Many victims do not report crimes of sexual assault because of embarrassment, self-blame, and fear. On university and college campuses, victims of sexual assault are less likely to report their experience if they were under the influence of alcohol during the assault, they have limited understanding of the university’s policies and procedures surrounding sexual assault, and they have limited knowledge of other sexual assaults on their campus. In addition to these issues of reporting, many researchers have suggested that rates of sexual assault on university and college campuses are often purposefully obscured. These scholars claim that universities and colleges often mask the prevalence of campus sexual assault in an effort to preserve the image of a safe campus community. This focus on public relations rather addressing the actual problem has been suggested to further the difficulties in understanding the true rates of sexual assaults on university and college campuses. Despite these difficulties in calculating rates of sexual assault, it is generally accepted that sexual assault is one of the most common crimes committed in North America. It has also been recognized that university and college campuses are some of the most prevalent locations for all forms of sexual assault. Several scholars have attempted to understand why sexual assaults occur so often on university and college campuses. Many have argued that age, alcohol use, and male norms are connected to the heightened rates of campus sexual assaults. As Frintner and Rubinson (1993) demonstrated in their research, women between the ages of 16 and 24—the age group to which most undergraduate students belong—are at the greatest risk of experiencing some form of sexual assault. Others researchers have shown that in places where alcohol use is prevalent—a descriptor that fits most university and college campuses—sexual assaults occur more frequently. In addition to these issues, many scholars have argued that norms surrounding increased sexual activity and male aggression on university and college campuses contribute to the frequency of campus sexual assaults. Research has shown only 5 percent of sexual offenses occurring on campus are reported to police. Other scholars have examined possible cultural explanations for campus sexual assault. For instance, he predominance of sexual, and sometimes violent, imagery of women in the media has been suggested to play a role in heightening rates of sexual assault. Furthermore, the prevalence of representations of male aggression and female sexuality in the media has been seen as another potential cause of

Sexual Assault Crimes, High School

sexual assault. These cultural explanations have been suggested to contribute to the effects of the issues discussed earlier. In the past 20 years, the awareness of the prevalence of sexual assault has grown. Research specifically directed toward sexual assault on university and college campuses has increased, and public awareness on the issue has expanded. As a result, greater pressure is being placed on universities and colleges to provide proper resources for victims who have experienced sexual assault. Many campuses have established sexual assault centers or women’s centers that focus on providing information and counseling services for survivors of violence. In addition, some campuses have begun to hold self-defense classes for students. While these efforts represent improvements to campus life, some scholars have argued that more work remains to be done. Several groups on university and college campuses in North America have emerged as part of the effort to raise awareness about campus sexual assault. One in Four is an all-male student group that uses peer education to dispel the myths surrounding sexual assault on university and college campuses. SAFE (Sexual Assault Facts and Education) is another student organization that advocates for victims and educate campus communities about the prevalence and nature of sexual assault. Andrea Quinlan Further Reading Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women, and rape. New York: Bantam Books. Day, K. (1994). Conceptualizing women’s fear of sexual assault on campus: A review of causes and recommendations for change. Environment and Behaviour, 26(6), 742–765. Gavey, N. (2005). Just sex? The cultural scaffolding of rape. New York: Routledge. Tarrant, S. (2008). Men speak out: Views of gender, sex and power. New York: Routledge.

Sexual Assault Crimes, High School Sexual violence has long been an issue in American society. According to one study, roughly 1.3 forcible rapes occur each minute in the United States. The socialization of men and women as well as society’s presupposed traditional gender roles play pivotal roles in the sexual violence directed at young girls in high school. This essay discusses the prevalence of sexual assault and rape in high school as well as the issues that underlie such crimes. According to the National Violence Against Women Survey, 54% of the females surveyed were younger than age 18 at the time they were raped. Roughly 32.7%

425

426

Sexual Assault Crimes, High School

were between the ages of 12 and 17. Furthermore, in a study conducted in South Dakota, the frequency of date rape among high school girls ranged from 11.8% to 14.9%. In yet another study, 15% of high school participants reported experiencing sexual violence in their dating relationships. In addition, according to studies conducted by the American Association of University Women in 1993 and 2001, roughly 80% of students in public schools have experienced sexual harassment by school administration or personnel or by their peers. In another study on dating violence in high schools conducted by Molidor and Tolman, 46% of the students stated that the dating violence had occurred on school grounds. Moreover, in 2006, the Bureau of Justice Statistics concluded that the rate of rape and sexual assault among 12- to 15-year-olds was 3.4 per 1,000. For 16- to 19-year-olds, the rate was 2.5 per 1,000. Sexual assault and rape among high school girls are grossly underreported. There are myriad reasons why young girls do not report these crimes. One reason is fear of retaliation, especially if the offender is known to the victim, which is typically the case. For example, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2005, seven of every 10 victims of rape and sexual assault had been victimized by someone they knew. Additionally, shame, guilt, and a lack of faith in the criminal justice system contribute to the issue of underreporting. In essence, because of the nature of such fear-inducing crimes, young girls often concede to living in a world where silence reigns supreme. While there are several reasons for the prevalence of sexual violence directed at young girls in high school, one major reason is the socialization of men and the traditional gender roles advocated by society. The United States seems to be infatuated with gender and androcentrism. As a consequence, boys incessantly receive messages from parents, siblings, and the media about what it means to be a “real” man. While girls are supposed to be submissive, sexually pure beings, boys are encouraged to be tough, aggressive, and assertive sexual athletes. Such a macho mentality has the side effect of perpetuating sexual violence against young girls. As studies on sexual violence in high school were published indicating the immense scope of this problem, educational institutions began to implement educational programs aimed at fostering rejection of rape-supportive attitudes, altering aggressive behavior, and ultimately curbing the prevalence of rape and sexual assault in high school. Although little is known about the effectiveness of such programs, as educators, it is incumbent upon a high school’s administration and staff to impart the knowledge that is essential to reduce the incidence of sexual violence. Conclusively, sexual assault and rape are crimes that are generally void of sexual gratification. They begin and end with a sense of entitlement and a craving

Sexual Harassment

for power, domination, and control. Moreover, the idea of an aggressive “real” man, which may be disseminated by parents, siblings, and the media alike, plays a crucial role in the sexual victimization of high school girls. Although it is impossible to completely eradicate sexual assault and rape, through education and a gradual abandonment in the detrimental “real” man images, young men and women can collaborate and curtail the occurrence of sexual violence in high school. Rebecca Ajo Further Reading Fineran, S., & Bolen, R. (2006). Risk factors for peer sexual harassment in schools. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(9), 1169–1191. Garland, T. (2005). An overview of sexual assault and rape myths. In F. P. Reddington & B. Wright Kreisel (Eds.), Sexual assault: The victims, the perpetrators and the criminal justice system (pp. 5–27). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Lanier, C.A. (2001). Rape-accepting attitudes: Precursors to or consequences of forced sex. Violence Against Women, 7(8), 876–885. National Institute of Justice. (2008). Rape and sexual assault are serious problems. In L. I. (Ed.), Opposing viewpoints: Sexual violence (pp. 21–27). Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press. Prospero, M. (2007). Young adolescent boys and dating violence: The beginning of patriarchal terrorism? Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 22(3), 271–280. Schubot, D. B. (2001). Date rape prevalence among high school students in a rural midwestern state during 1993, 1995, and 1997. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Retrieved from sagepublications.com

Sexual Harassment The law recognizes two forms of sexual harassment: quid pro quo and hostile environment. Quid pro quo cases (“something for something”) must demonstrate that sexual favors were coerced in exchange for some form of favor such as keeping one’s job, securing a promotion, or getting a raise. Hostile environment cases must demonstrate that unwanted sexual behaviors created an environment that negatively affected a person’s ability to perform his or her duties. Legal protections in the United States against sexual harassment in the workplace date back to Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352), which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. However, schools did not have legal precedents to guide their responses to

427

428

Sexual Harassment

incidents of sexual harassment until 1992, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools. In this landmark decision, a student named Christine Franklin filed a complaint against a coach and teacher at her school, Andrew Hill, for sexual harassment and abuse. Starting in the fall of 1986, when Franklin was in 10th grade, Hill had sexually oriented conversations with her and asked whether she would consider having intercourse with an older man. The behaviors escalated to forcible kissing and excusing Franklin from class and “subject[ing] her to coercive intercourse” (p. 63). The school investigated Hill’s behavior and allegedly took no action against him; in addition, it discouraged Franklin from pressing charges against Hill. Hill resigned on April 14, 1988, on the condition that all charges against him be dropped. Franklin’s lawyers used Title IX of the U.S. Education Amendments of 1972 to establish that students in schools that receive federal funding are protected from harassment based on sex and may be awarded financial damages. Although Title IX is most widely known for its impact in reducing disparities between men and women in athletics participation at the collegiate level, it was written so as to protect individuals from being discriminated against by any federally funded educational institution on the basis of sex. The second important sexual harassment case that affected students in schools was Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999). When she was in the fifth grade, a male classmate of LaShonda Davis tried to touch her breasts and told her, “I want to get in bed with you” and “I want to feel your boobs.” Davis reported this behavior to her mother and teacher, but the school did not do anything to support Davis or punish the perpetrator. This harassment continued, with Davis being subjected to verbal taunts, leers in class, and unwanted behaviors. Although Davis reported each of these incidents to her teachers, she still had to sit next to the offending student in class and nothing was done to stop the harassment. The incidents stopped six months later when her parents went to the police; they charged the boy with sexual battery, to which he pleaded guilty. During this time, Davis’s previously high grades had dropped, and her father discovered that she had written a suicide note. These events led to a second landmark Supreme Court decision that applied Title IX to cases of student-on-student sexual harassment. In cases of sexual harassment, four main criteria must be met under the application of Title IX: 1. School officials must have actual knowledge of the harassment. 2. School officials must demonstrate deliberate indifference to harassment or take actions that are clearly unreasonable. 3. School officials must have substantial control over both the harasser and the context in which the known harassment occurs.

Sexual Harassment

4. The harassment must be severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive such that it can be said to deprive the victim) of access to the educational opportunities of benefits provided by the school (Davis v. Monroe, 1999). The combination of actual knowledge with the acts of deliberate indifference is essential in harassment cases brought under Title IX. The Office of Civil Rights has since clarified that the OCR does not make schools responsible for the actions of the harassing student, “but rather for its own discrimination in failing to take immediate and appropriate steps to remedy the hostile environment once a school official knows about it.” Finally, it is important to note that in cases decided in favor of the student, federally funded institutions may be held financially liable for damages. Although Title IX and the OCR provide clear guidelines and protections for students experiencing sexual harassment, legal scholar Gigi Rollini (2003) argues that “the only victims [who] succeed under Davis are ones [who] are utterly debilitated by the harassment.” This is due to the fourth criterion, which requires students to demonstrate that the harassment was so severe that it deprived them of access to an education. This point shields the legal system from having to handle minor complaints, but it provides minimal protection to students who are experiencing harassment but manage to maintain their academic performance despite the abuse. In addition to protecting students from heterosexual harassment, Title IX has been used to defend the rights of students who have been targeted for sexual orientation harassment. Title IX protections have been applied more broadly in cases such as Ray v. Antioch Unified School District (2000) and Montgomery v. Independent School District No. 709 (2000). In these cases, separate federal district courts (California and Minnesota, respectively) decided that schools could be held liable under Title IX for acting with “deliberate indifference” toward students who have reported persistent and severe sexual orientation harassment at school. These decisions applied the four criteria established in Davis v. Monroe, and held that Title IX could be effectively used to defend students in cases of sexual orientation harassment by their peers. The case Henkle v. Gregory (2001) provides one example of how a student’s complaint led to changes in his school district. In this case, the federal district court of Nevada allowed the case, which sought punitive damages for the Title IX sexual orientation harassment of Derek Henkle, to proceed. The school district chose to settle this case and paid $451,000 in damages to the student. Part of the settlement included changes to several district policies on discrimination and harassment to include sexual orientation and gender expression. These cases indicate that students are using existing legal protections to not only find relief from their own sexual harassment, but also educate others and update the

429

430

Sexual Orientation and School Crime and Violence, College

policies and practices of their schools to reduce the potential for harassing behaviors to be directed at other students. Elizabeth J. Meyer Further Reading Meyer, E. (2009). Gender, bullying, and harassment: Strategies to end sexism and homophobia in schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Office for Civil Rights. (1997). Sexual harassment guidance: Harassment of students by school employees, other students or third parties. Retrieved April 19, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/sexhar01.html Rollini, G. (2003). Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education: A hollow victory for student victims of peer sexual harassment. Florida State University Law Review, 30, 987–1014. Roth, S. (1994). Sex discrimination 101: Developing a Title IX analysis for sexual harassment in education. Journal of Law & Education, 23(4), 459–521.

Sexual Orientation and School Crime and Violence, College Individuals who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered (GLBT) tend to report that college campuses are less than fully comfortable places and that they are often fearful of harassment and physical violence. Verbal harassment of such students is extremely common, and physical aggression against them also occurs regularly. Students often report having to hide their identities to feel safe and to avoid intimidation. Violent incidents have been reported in a wide range of schools, including the Ivy League, large state universities, historically black colleges, community colleges, and religious institutions. Studies indicate that harassment, threats, and violence are commonly directed at college students who are thought to be gay or lesbian. Nearly 5% of gay students report being a victim of a physical assault during their college years, and 16% to 26% indicate that they have been threatened with physical assault during their time on campus. This incidence appears to mirror the rates of anti-gay violence in the larger society. According to FBI statistics, reports of hate crimes based on sexual orientation increased nearly 11% in 2008. It appears that being perceived as gay or lesbian by others is more closely related to harassment than actual sexual orientation. Therefore, students who are more gender atypical in their appearance, who acknowledge their sexual orientation earlier, or who are more open in their orientation are more vulnerable to harassment and attack. In San Francisco, a survey found that offenses against LGBT students by their peers were very common on community college campuses. Nearly one-third

Sexual Orientation and School Crime and Violence, College

(32%) of male community college students admitted to verbal harassment against someone whom they thought was gay, with 18% reporting they had committed or threatened physical violence against such a person. The motivations for these attacks varied. Assailants were most likely to view homosexuals as predatory and believed that physically assaulting a gay individual whom they believed was flirting with them was a form of self-defense. Having an individual perceived as gay speak to them or smile at them was considered a threat. Others who admitted to physically assaulting gays attributed their behavior to ideology, the goal of punishing those who behave in inappropriate ways, or thrill seeking. In a large study of 30 colleges conducted by the Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, researchers surveyed students, faculty, staff, and administrators, including those who identified themselves as GLBT and those who identified themselves as heterosexual. The vast majority of the respondents from both groups felt that GLBT students were likely to be harassed on their college campus. Of those who identified themselves as GLBT undergraduates, 36% reported having been harassed during the past 12 months, with the abuse generally taking the form of verbal taunts (89%) from fellow undergraduate students (79%). More than half reported that they concealed their sexual orientation or gender identity to avoid harassment, and 20% said they feared physical assault because of their sexuality. Not surprisingly, GLBT students generally say that they feel that college campuses are less safe and welcoming for them. In addition to verbal harassment and physical violence by their peers, these students report regular demeaning experiences, including derogatory remarks made by professors and coaches, antigay postings on social networking websites and email messages, anonymous notes left under dorm room doors or in mailboxes, vandalism of cars, and jeers. Others have reported that the police and campus officials do not take these incidents seriously. In rare cases, students at colleges supported by conservative religious denominations have been expelled for their homosexuality. Some evidence suggests that harassment of GLBT students may make them less likely to continue their education. Data indicate that gay and lesbian college students are more likely to be sexually assaulted than their peers, and lesbian students report higher rates of sexual harassment on campus. Elizabeth Kelley Rhoades Further Reading Draughn, T., Elkins, B., & Roy, R. (2002). Allies in the struggle: Eradicating homophobia and heterosexism on campus. In E. P. Cramer (Ed.), Addressing homophobia and heterosexism on college campuses (pp. 9–20). New York: Harrington Park Press.

431

432

Sexual Orientation and School Crime and Violence, High School

Rankin, S. R. (2003). Campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people: A national perspective. New York: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute. Rankin, S. R. (2006). LGBTQA students on campus: Is higher education making the grade? Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 3, 111–117.

Sexual Orientation and School Crime and Violence, High School Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) and other sexual minority young people tend to experience more bullying, violence, and harassment at school than their heterosexual peers. Victimization based on sexual orientation is often exacerbated in the cases of gender-nonconforming and transgendered students, students of color, and rural

Constance McMillen attends an LGBT pride event at the White House on June 22, 2010. Her Mississippi high school cancelled its prom after discovering that McMillen intended to attend with her same-sex partner. (AP/Wide World Photos)

Sexual Orientation and School Crime and Violence, High School

students. To prevent violence against LGB students in schools, many states, districts, and schools have enacted formal, comprehensive anti-bullying policies. Despite these recent policy interventions, bias-motivated crimes against sexual minorities still occur in schools. Data from the National School Climate Survey, administered by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, show that approximately 90% of LGB students hear a negative use of the word “gay” at school on a routine basis and 75% frequently hear other forms of homophobic speech. Sixty percent of these students hear similar remarks from teachers and other school personnel. In addition to negative speech based on sexual orientation, many sexual minority students hear comments challenging their masculinity or femininity. Nearly nine out of 10 sexual minority students are victims of verbal harassment at school targeting their sexual orientation; many of these individuals are also verbally harassed because of their gender expression. Almost half of all LGB students are pushed, shoved, or nonverbally harassed because of their sexual orientation; one in four sexual minority students has been punched, kicked, or assaulted at school. Sexual minority students are often targets of sexual harassment and webbased bullying as well. While LGB students are disproportionately victims of violence, they have also been shown to witness and perpetrate more violence than their straight peers. Sexual minority males are more likely than sexual minority females to be victims of violence; gender nonconformity and degree of public sexual disclosure (“outness”) are both correlates of victimization among LGB students. Most sexual minority students who are victims of bullying, harassment, or assault at school do not report the incident to an adult because they anticipate that the situation will become worse if they do. When an incident is reported, the most common response by school personnel is to do nothing; only one-third of sexual minority students who are victims of school-based abuse report an effective intervention from school staff. School personnel effectively intervene even less frequently when faced with anti-gay speech in the classroom. Nonetheless,80% of LGB students can identify a school staff member who they believe is supportive of LGB students. Common institutional interventions used to protect LGB students from schoolbased victimization include gay/straight alliances (GSAs), sexual orientation– inclusive curricula, and comprehensive anti-bullying policies. GSAs are present in more than 4,000 schools, and approximately one-third of LGB students participate in such a group. Evidence suggests that GSAs are effective in decreasing the level of homophobic remarks, harassment, and assault in schools and in increasing the sense of school safety and belonging among sexual minority students. Far fewer schools implement curricula inclusive of LGB, gender-nonconforming, and transgendered people. Comprehensive school- and state-level anti-harassment

433

434

Social Learning Theories

policies, although relatively rare, have been shown to reduce biased language, homophobic remarks, harassment, and assaults targeting LGB students. Research routinely shows that sexual minority students have lower grade-point averages, higher absentee rates, higher dropout rates, higher course failure rates, and lower bachelor’s degree aspirations than heterosexual students. Academic outcomes and attendance rates are lower among those LGB students who report the highest levels of school-based harassment. While fewer than one-third of students attracted to members of the same sex openly disclose their sexuality to their friends—and even fewer disclose their sexuality to adults at school—those who do maintain a greater sense of school belonging than those who do not. Several high-profile bias-motivated crimes (“hate crimes”) based on sexual orientation and gender identity have occurred in schools. The most notable among them is the 2008 murder of a gender-nonconforming bullying victim, Lawrence King, in Oxnard, California. Dozens of sexual minority students have committed suicide because of confirmed incidents of anti-gay bullying at school. Christopher J. Stapel Further Reading D’Augelli, A. R., Pilkington, N. W., & Hershberger, S. L. (2002, Summer). Incidence and mental health impact of sexual orientation victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths in high school. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(2), 148–167. Kosciw, J. G., Diaz, E. M., & Greytak, E. A. (2008). 2007 national school climate survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: GLSEN. Russell, S. T., Franz, B. T., & Driscoll, A. K. (2001). Same-sex romantic attraction and experiences of violence in adolescence. American Journal of Public Health, 91(6), 903–906.

Social Learning Theories Social learning theories hold that criminal behaviors are learned in interaction with others, particularly (but not exclusively) those within close personal circles such as family, friends, and neighbors. According to this perspective, criminality is not inborn, biological, or genetic, nor is it limited to people of specific backgrounds, resources, or opportunities. Rather, all people are seen as having the potential to engage in criminal or deviant acts, and criminality is a function of the socialization process. Thus social learning theories focus on interactions or socializing processes between individuals, often in a close face-to-face context. Unlike social structural theories, which as macro-structural theories emphasize

Social Learning Theories

large-scale, often abstract, social structures and institutions (such as the economy, labor market, education, government, or culture), social learning theories tend to be micro-structural, focusing on relationships within specific settings or environments. Where structural theories speak of labor markets and unemployment, social learning theories examine relationships within specific workplaces or between individuals and the unemployment office. Social learning theories of crime and deviance found their most influential early expression in the work of University of Chicago sociologist Edwin Sutherland, who developed his differential association theory in the 1930s. For Sutherland, crime was a function of learning that can influence anyone in any culture. Notably, Sutherland avoided the tendency of most of his peers to focus on working-class subcultures or crimes of the poor. Sutherland’s work was groundbreaking in focusing attention on professional and corporate crimes, at a time when few researchers considered such offenses worthy of investigation; in fact, Sutherland coined the term “white-collar crime.” To understand the learning of crime, Sutherland examined the recruitment and socialization behaviors of elites within their excusive institutions, including corporate offices, private clubs, and professional schools. Differential association theory suggests that close and trusted relatives and companions teach criminal behavior and attitudes, creating and sustaining a context in which the emphasis on supporting crime outweighs the emphasis on opposing it. Significantly, differential association theory examines not only the learning of deviant acts, specific techniques, or skills from influential peers, but also the ways in which peer networks teach people to deal with criminality psychologically. Thus peers teach people to rationalize or legitimize their activities, thereby helping people to shift from rule-abiding to rule-breaking identities in a way that supports their deviant or criminal choices. Corporate criminals rationalize their activities as “only doing business” or “helping the economy,” for example. Youthful deviants justify their acts as “being cool” or “not being square” or “flipping off authority.” The most significant social learning theories of crime are labeling theories, which follow from the work of Howard Becker. These perspectives examine the development of criminal careers from a first act of (possibly harmless) deviance, rather than the causes of crime itself. Labeling theories are influenced by sociological and psychological theories of symbolic interactionism, as expressed in the work of Charles Cooley, George Herbert Mead, and Herbert Blumer. According to symbolic interactionism, people interpret symbolic gestures from others and incorporate them into their own self-image. Thus negative reactions, whether verbal or expressed in body language, could cause individuals to view themselves in a negative light. This insight would prove to be a central tenet of labeling theory, which examined the effect of social signals—including those given by teachers, police, and other justice officials and media—upon adoption of criminal identities.

435

436

Social Learning Theories

The formal beginnings of labeling theory date to the early works of Franklin Tannenbaum in the 1930s, particularly Crime and Community (1938). Tannenbaum pointed out that many forms of juvenile delinquency are simply normal parts of adolescent street life. They are part of the play, experiment, adventure, and excitement that represent crucial parts of individual and social development. To others, particularly outsiders of different age cohorts, such activities may be seen as threatening or a nuisance. Those individuals may demand the intervention of some form of social control or punishment of the juvenile offender, whether through police or school officials. Such intervention begins a process of change in the manner in which the targeted individuals and their activities are perceived and treated. There is a gradual shift from the definition of specific acts as evil to the redefining of the individual himself or herself as evil. Everything about the individual, his or her friends, clothing, speech, music, and so on is turned into an object of scrutiny and cast as evidence for a delinquent nature. According to Tannenbaum, individuals targeted in this way may eventually learn to view themselves as delinquents. This process, which Tannenbaum refers to as the “dramatization of evil,” leads to the child or youth being separated out of the surrounding group and subjected to negative treatment. Not only criminals are made deviant in this manner; rather, individuals who simply violate norms or conventions rather than laws, particularly members of youth subcultures, may be subjected to such treatment. Tannenbaum noted that the poor are more likely than the wealthy to get caught up in this process. This point has been developed by critical criminologists and conflict theorists. Building on these insights, labeling theory attempts to examine the social and interpersonal processes through which acts, attributes, and beliefs come to be constructed as deviant. It attempts to explain how cultural and individual perceptions create and sustain deviant identities. For labeling theories, deviance results from the enforcement of rules rather than specific acts. The deviant person is simply someone to whom the label “deviant” has been successfully applied, not someone who is fundamentally different. Even more, the deviant person is someone who has come to believe the label as it applies to him or her. Labeling theorists note that most people have engaged in deviant, even criminal, acts but do not consider themselves to be criminals because those events pass without notice or regard. If someone is caught in such an act, however, a process is engaged that shifts the person’s self-perception. Being arrested, identified, brought to trial, and perhaps jailed is what labeling theorists call a “degradation ceremony,” in which the person subjected to this treatment is initiated into a deviant role and assigned a deviant label. This process often alters a person’s self-concept, disrupts personal relationships, and changes life chances and opportunities, including negatively impacting employment, housing, and education. To be publicly defined as deviant is to carry an expectation that you will behave in certain ways. By assigning

Social Learning Theories

negative identities, conforming members of society—and those with the power to assign labels—strongly influence offenders’ future behavior. People learn to take on behaviors and attitudes consistent with the label. “Stigma” is the term used by Erving Goffman to refer to the mark of disgrace that is associated with deviant or criminal labels. People are turned into deviants through official procedures that are about the exercise of power and authority within stratified societies rather than strictly expressions of justice. Labeling theories challenge notions of social consensus that propose social order results from broadly agreed-upon goals and values. For social learning theorists, reality is socially constructed or produced through the activities of disparate and varying groups both internally and through their interactions with other, more or less powerful, groups. They stress the importance of power relations within a given society and suggest that it is essential to know who assumes the authority to do the labeling in society. This information helps explain why less harmful acts, such as shoplifting or squeegeeing, which are often carried out by less powerful members of society, are targeted for criminalization and the deployment of criminal justice system resources, whereas more harmful acts such as pollution, product safety, or unfair labor practices, which are typically undertaken by corporate elites, are less likely to leave the perpetrator with a deviant or criminal label. Similarly, labeling theorists might suggest that schoolyard bullying receives proportionally more public attention than a variety of corporate crimes. Labeling theorists emphasize that some people have the power to make their labels stick, while others cannot. The definition of deviance or crime is a form of social control exerted by more powerful actors over less powerful actors. Labeling is part of a process that excludes subordinate actors from social participation or from power. Social psychologist Albert Bandura’s social learning theory emphasizes modeling and the processes by which people learn not only through direct experience but also by observing others whom they respect or admire. Role models in the media, arts, sports, or music, for example, can influence people to act in desirable or undesirable ways. As Bandura also noted, observation of violent acts, as on television, could be reflected in violent acts by child observers. Social learning theories are significant in showing that societies’ definitions determine whether certain behavior is considered deviant or criminal, and in pointing out that these definitions change over time and place. Often these definitions are the outcome of social struggle, inequality, and exploitation. Furthermore, labeling theory shows that the act of labeling—especially as associated with the activities of schools, police, criminal justice systems, media, and prisons—may actually perpetuate crime rather than reducing it. Jeffrey Shantz

437

438

Social Networking

Further Reading Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders. New York: Free Press. Sutherland, E. (1949). White collar crime. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Social Networking Social networking involves online groups of people who share some common interests. As part of their interactions, users create webpages in which they can post pictures, videos, information about themselves, articles, and much more. Users then invite people to be their friends, which grants them access to see the pages. MySpace, a social networking site is owned by Fox Interactive Media, has more than 115 million monthly users across the globe. Facebook, another popular social networking site, boasts more than 400 million users worldwide.

An unidentified University of Missouri student looks at a profile on Facebook. Facebook is a popular social networking site for high school and college students. (AP/Wide World Photos)

Social Networking

Students say bullying and harassment often begins on social networking sites. In recent years, reports have documented the rise in cyberbullying, which is often facilitated through social networking sites. Some cases have received national attention. In one case, a teenage girl’s mother orchestrated the bullying through MySpace that led to another girl’s suicide. When Lori Drew’s daughter told her about an argument she had with her best friend, Megan Meier, she also said she thought Megan was saying bad things about her in school and on MySpace. Drew helped create a MySpace page for a fictitious character, Josh, who “friended” Meier and began to create an online relationship with her. After some time, Josh told Meier told her he hated her and that the world would be better without her. In October 2006, Meier hung herself. Drew was indicted in the case and found guilty of three counts of computer hacking. At the time, prosecutors had a difficult time finding appropriate laws they could use to try Drew. Dardenne Prairie, Missouri, became the first town in the United States to pass legislation to make cyberharassment a specific offense. In another case, when John Halligan’s son Josh committed suicide after being cyberbullied, Halligan lobbied for a bullying prevention law in Vermont that would include cyberbullying; the law was passed. In another case, bullies posted a fake profile of Drew McGowan, claiming he was a homosexual. Phoebe Prince, who was bullied on Facebook by a group of girls from her high school, committed suicide in 2009. Students have also posted “hit lists” of people whom they intend to kill or inappropriate pictures, such as themselves with weapons and drugs. Often these posts lead school administrators or police to intervene before an attack or criminal incident occurs. Police are now trolling the web, including MySpace and Facebook, to look for clues suggestive of potential violence. Social networking sites are also used by abusive teen partners as a method to control their victims. Teens may post embarrassing pictures or information or threaten their partners via these sites. MySpace is aware of the concern that it can be used for violent or criminal purposes and has prepared a “School Administrator’s Guide” to assist administrators in addressing problems that might arise. The organization reports that, while the majority (78%) of student Internet use occurs off school grounds, parents generally believe that schools have a responsibility to ensure children’s Internet safety. More than 40% of parents have reached out to school administrators for advice on this topic. The MySpace guide includes information explaining how to contact MySpace in the event that a false or offensive profile is posted, or in the case of threats, cyberbullying, or suspected underage users. The guide talks parents through how to handle each of these issues. MySpace says it is committed to protecting users, in particular young ones. New profiles for persons younger than the age of 18 are automatically defaulted to a

439

440

Social Networking

private setting, which should prohibit uninvited persons from seeing the information. Users are not able to browse for profile pages by persons younger than the age of 16. All users younger than the age of 18 are required to read a list of safety tips before registering, receive warnings before posting any content, and must preapprove any comments made on their page. Young users are also prohibited from browsing inappropriate pages, such as romance and relationship chat forums, adult message groups, and mature groups. On January 14, 2008, state attorneys general from 49 states announced an agreement with MySpace that they felt would better protect children and young people. MySpace agreed to take the following steps: • Create a task force to develop age and identity verification technology to keep underage children off its site • Set up a registry of blocked email addresses of minors, to be supplied by parents • Make the profiles of members ages 14–17 “private” by default, meaning they can be seen by friends only • Establish a “high school” section of the site for users younger than age 18 • Respond within 72 hours to complaints about inappropriate content • Hire more staff to police such content as photos and discussion boards The lone holdout from the agreement, Texas State Attorney Greg Abbott, refused to sign the agreement because he claimed that social networking sites could not adequately protect young people. Like MySpace, Facebook claims to take great precautions to protect users, but has faced criticisms that they are not sufficient. PBS Frontline has produced two informative episodes about youth in the digital age. Growing Up Online and Digital Nation examine how technology is being used by young people, explore the risks they face, and suggest ways to keep them safe. Both episodes, which can be viewed online, also include resources for parents and educators. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Associated Press. (2008, May 15). Missouri woman indicted in MySpace cyber bullying case that ended in teen’s suicide. Fox News. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356056,00.html Digital Nation: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/ The facts about teen dating violence. (2010). Violence Against Women Online Resources. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://vaw.umn.edu/documents/ inbriefs/teendatingviolence/teendatingviolence.html

Social Structure Theories

Growing Up Online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kidsonline/view/ Leonard, T. (2007, November 23). MySpace suicide town outlaws online bullying. The Telegraph. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ worldnews/1570308/MySpace-suicide-town-outlaws-online-bullying.html MySpace agrees to toughen age control. (2008, January 22). PBS Frontline. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kidsonline/safe/ protecting.html The official school administrator’s guide to understanding MySpace and resolving social networking issues. (n.d.). Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://cms .myspacecdn.com/cms/SafetySite/documents/SchoolAdministratorGuide.pdf Roberts, E. (2010, April 9). Students invited to give perspective on school violence. South Florida Sun Sentinel. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://articles. sun-sentinel.com/2010-04-09/news/fl-dff-mayorside-0408-20100409_1_school -violence-john-esposito-deerfield-beach-middle-school Saulny, S. (2007, March 22). On hitlists, anger finds an outlet. New York Times. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/fashion/22 HITLIST.html Whitcomb, D. (2010, March 9). Cyber-bullying cases put heat on Google, Facebook. Reuters. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.reuters.com/ article/idUSTRE6275UG20100309 Zapf, K. (2008, April 28). Student victim of MySpace bullies. Pittsburgh Tribune Review. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitts burghtrib/news/s_448311.html

Social Structure Theories Social structure theories bring a sociological (rather than biological or psychological) approach to studies of crime and deviance. Instead of focusing solely or primarily on individuals, these theories seek to explain how individuals are situated within and experience larger-scale social institutions such as schools, government, the labor market, cultural industries, and the criminal justice system. Over the years, theorists have proposed mainstream or consensus theories of social structure as well as critical or conflict theories of structure. According to mainstream or consensus theories, social structures serve to regulate and socialize individuals to conform to dominant social norms, rewarding some behaviors while penalizing others. In contrast, according to critical social structure theories, social, economic and political power serve as barriers that impede, constrain, or shape what is possible for people in specific societal contexts, largely based on characteristics such as class, ethnicity, gender, or sexuality.

441

442

Social Structure Theories

Mainstream or consensus-based social structure theories trace their roots to the work of the French sociologist Emile Durkheim (1858–1917). For Durkheim, crime was a social rather than psychological phenomenon and the product of a specific kind of social order. Specifically, according to Durkheim, a society without shared norms and values will function poorly. Societies are regulated by a conscience collective—that is, shared norms, beliefs, rituals, and customs—that holds their diverse members together, providing a shared worldview or value system that defines acceptable and unacceptable social behaviors. This framework shapes and regulates social interactions. For Durkheim, small-scale societies, such as horticultural or agricultural societies, with a low level of social differentiation and a minimal division of labor, where the majority of society share similar life experiences, exhibit the strongest and most durable conscience collective and, therefore, have the fewest occurrences of crime and deviance. Within industrial capitalist societies, which are characterized by a broad and diverse division of labor, the conscience collective is more difficult to sustain given the great social and cultural differences and the vast disparities in wealth and social opportunity. A breakdown of shared values, increased by a growing division of labor, leads to what Durkheim called anomie, or a condition of normlessness. Anomie results in increased crime, deviance, and suicide rates. Durkheim’s work has informed a range of social structure theories, including the influential work of Robert K. Merton and Albert Cohen. During the 1950s and 1960s, structural theories represented the dominant sociological perspective on crime and deviance. First among these was Merton’s “strain theory.” According to Merton, individuals in capitalist societies such as the United States share essentially the same cultural goals—namely, wealth, status, and financial success, collectively dubbed the American Dream. These goals are encouraged and reinforced by the major social institutions, such as schools, government, media, and corporations. In turn, culturally preferred and encouraged means to achieve these goals are defined—education, hard work, thrift, and personal sacrifice. These become culturally valued attributes or practices, expressed in notions such as the “work ethic.” Of course, people have differential means available for achieving these culturally supported goals. Some have blocked opportunities, perhaps because of class location or socioeconomic status, but also because of race, ethnicity, or gender discrimination. As a consequence these individuals are unable to achieve their goals through legitimate means. Society offers members of different social groups very different institutional means of achieving its proscribed goals, such as unequal opportunities for education regardless of ability, fulfilling work, or financial aid. Strain develops from this means–end discrepancy between culturally encouraged goals and structurally available means for achieving them; if intense enough, it can result in deviance. A gap between effort and reward makes it impossible for

Social Structure Theories

some people to set realistic, achievable goals or to plan legitimate ways of achieving their goals. According to Merton, individuals respond to this strain in one of five ways. First, they may engage in conformism, in which they accept the socially encouraged means and ends. These individuals stay in school and sacrifice to become economically successful. The second option is Innovation, in which people accept the goals of wealth and status but reject the socially approved means of obtaining those goals. An example would be drug dealers or corporate criminals who pursue illegal means or cheat to achieve financial success. The third option involves ritualism, in which people become attached to the means but lose sight of the goals. A “professional student” or middle management bureaucrat might be considered examples of ritualism. The fourth possibility is retreatism, in which people reject both the means and the goals. A dropout or someone who pursues subcultural activities might be an example of this response. Finally there are rebels, those individuals who reject the socially defined goals and means but seek to replace them with alternatives. Revolutionaries, anarchists, and countercultural activists would exemplify rebellion. According to Merton, persons of lower socioeconomic status are most likely to experience greater strain and, therefore, to engage in deviant acts, perhaps taking the form of as retreatism or innovation. Many theorists have developed structural theories building on Merton’s work. Albert Cohen focused specifically on working-class youth. He presented the notion of status frustration to explain higher rates of delinquency among youth from less wealthy backgrounds. In his view, frustration results from the fact that poorer youth lack sufficient access to legitimate means to achieve their goals and recognize their limitations. This recognition is expressed in social frustration, and a sense that they will be punished no matter how they behave; it is acted upon through acts of deviance. Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin suggest that marginalized youth seek alternatives or innovations to seek their goals. According to these theorists, youth face “differential opportunity structures” that limit their life options and possibilities for personal development. As a result, these individuals form and join subcultures to help themselves achieve their goals or develop alternatives. The work of Cloward and Ohlin focuses on the emergence of deviant subcultures among youth. Over the last few decades. a variety of authors have focused on economic structures and the emergence of deviance. Robert Agnew’s “general strain theory” explains deviance as a coping mechanism to help adolescents deal with the negative emotional states related to their experiences of socioeconomic problems. Proponents of “institutional strain theory” note that throughout the neo-liberal era, roughly from the 1980s to the present, economic issues have come to dominate non-economic spheres, weakening the informal control mechanisms exerted by the family, school, church, and communities. In this environment, politics

443

444

Social Structure Theories

becomes about the economy, trade, and investment, rather than about social policy, civil rights, or democratic practice. School, for example, is now dominated by considerations of the job market, and future employability, rather than concerns about developing critical thought or citizenship. Programs that are viewed as contributing to personal enrichment rather than employability, such as music, drama, art, classical studies, or philosophy, face cuts or cancellation in favor of trades and technology or business training. According to institutional strain theory, the heightened emphasis on success in economic terms increases social strain (anomie). The emphasis on the most expedient path to economic success means that crime may be viewed as the most efficient means to financial gain. The celebrity status achieved by corporate criminals, such as Michael Milken, during the Reagan era provides but one example of institutional strain theory in action. Other social structure theorists have preferred to examine links between crime and levels of disorganization within specific neighborhoods or communities rather than more abstract cultural values or institutions. Social ecology theories, influenced by the Chicago School of Sociology and the work of Robert Park, suggest that in crime-ridden neighborhoods, local institutions such as schools and social services agencies have broken down and no longer perform their expected or stated functions. Residents experience conflict and despair and antisocial behavior results. High school dropout rates and high rates of youth unemployment are typical characteristics of breakdown leading to deviance and crime. According to “cultural transmission theory,” poor neighborhoods are marked by high population turnover rates, which disrupts informal social controls. Such areas are said to give rise to youth crime. Crime will be a constant feature in this environment, regardless of the personal character of the residents, because of existing structural conditions. According to “cultural transmission theory,” gang activity and youth deviance are normal and expected responses to adverse conditions in which legitimized alternatives are otherwise not available for youth who perceive themselves to be trapped without options. For these theories, crime is a strategy to deal with destructive social conditions. More critical or radical proponents of structural theories reject the emphasis that is often placed on street crimes or the crimes of the working class. First, they point out, the most harmful crimes, socially and environmentally, are crimes of elites, such as toxic dumping, unsafe products, unhealthy working conditions, pollution, and food contamination. These crimes, they argue, should be given more attention than the small-scale crimes that consume most of criminal justice system resources. Second, the use of criminal justice statistics, such as police and court records, within some of the structural theories identified previously, misrepresents actual criminal activity. The use of police records in social ecology theories to calculate neighborhood crime rates, for example, reflects police surveillance of those neighborhoods rather than actual rates of criminal activity. Finally, while

Social Structure Theories

structural theories do a good job of documenting social inequalities, critical theorists argue that the point is to confront and end inequality. For critical structural theorists, including those who favor explanations based on structural Marxism and anarchism, the main structures in society that must be understood in reaction to crime and deviance are the state and capital. These institutions fundamentally control social resources and have the power to define specific acts as crimes and certain individuals as criminals, often on the basis of class or other factors. According to the critical structural perspective, the capitalist state and its institutions exist to preserve the interests of the dominant economic class, the capitalist class of those who own and control the means of production. The main concern of this dominant class is the preservation of an economic and social order that maintains their privilege and allows them to continue the accumulation of wealth. Behaviors that threaten the existing socioeconomic regime are most likely to be targeted, ideologically as well as practically, for punishment. As a consequence, most resources of the criminal justice system are directed toward (often minor) property crimes such as petty thefts and shoplifting. Similarly, moral panics are most often directed toward the activities of the working class and poor, particularly working-class youth—for example, raves, squeegeeing, hip-hop music, punk music. By comparison, crimes of elites, such as corporate crime, ecological crimes, and government misconduct, receive far less attention from the criminal justice system and result in fewer, and less severe, punishments. The main focus of the criminal justice system, according to critical structural theorists, is to prohibit behaviors that threaten the unequal distribution of property under capitalism or the state’s monopoly on the use of force. Thus one sees the criminalization of union organizing, strikes, protests, and rebellion. The inherent conflicts that exist within a system of broad socioeconomic inequality are controlled through the structures of government and the criminal justice system in a way that inhibits disadvantaged classes and sustains dominant classes’ capacities to rule. For structural Marxists, the state must be taken over and controlled by the working class to serve their needs. For anarchists, the state, as an inherently authoritarian and hierarchical institution, is always a force of domination and cannot be used to achieve equality. Instead, the state must be replaced by communitybased direct democracy and participatory decision making. Jeffrey Shantz Further Reading Cohen, A. (1955). Delinquent boys. New York: Free Press. Merton, R. (1949). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press. Polk, K., & Schafer, W. (Eds.). (1972). Schools and delinquency. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

445

446

Solomon, T. J.

Taylor, I., Walton, P., & Young, J. (1988). The new criminology: For a social theory of deviance. London: Routledge.

Solomon, T. J. On May 20, 1999, a 15-year-old sophomore named Anthony Thomas Solomon, Jr. (also known as T. J.), walked into his high school in Conyers, Georgia, and shot six of his classmates, giving all but one of them superficial wounds. The shooting took place before classes at Heritage High School began for the day, while 150 students were gathered in the school’s indoor commons area. The United States was shocked by this tragedy because it occurred exactly one month to the day after the Columbine High School massacre. When one realizes that no one was killed, this incident might not be perceived to be as horrifying as what happened at Columbine. Solomon had arrived at school that day with a .22-caliber sawed-off shotgun and a .357-magnum revolver stuffed in his baggy jeans. He also arrived at school with a pocket full of bullets. That morning, instead of socializing with his friends, Solomon stood alone off to the side. At 7:55 A.M., he pulled out the shotgun and fired all of its rounds. He emptied the gun, aiming low and firing between 10 and 12 shots. The six students hit were Jason Cheek, a senior who was shot twice; Cania Cullins, an African American sophomore; Drake Hoy; Stephanie Laster, a sophomore; Ryan Rosa, a junior; and an unidentified student. Of the six, only Laster was seriously hurt; in her case, the bullet first hit a hard surface such as a floor, a table, or a wall and then ricocheted into her lower abdomen. Everyone else suffered either flesh wounds or minor injuries. The attack had lasted less than 10 minutes. After Solomon had emptied the shotgun, he ran out of the commons. He then fell to his knees and put the revolver in his mouth. Before he could shoot himself, the high school’s vice principal, Cecil T. Brinkley, calmed Solomon down. According to Brinkley, Solomon grabbed him and started shaking. Solomon said, “Oh, my God, I’m so scared.” Brinkley took Solomon outside and handed him over to a deputy from the Rockdale County Sheriff’s Department. That afternoon, after Solomon was arrested, Solomon’s mother, Mae Dean Daniele, a secretary for a veterinarian, and his stepfather, Robert W. Daniele, an executive at a trucking firm, arranged for lawyer Edward T. M. Garland to defend him. He was transported by Sheriff Jeff T. Wigington to a youth detention center, where he was met by his parents and Garland. Rockdale County’s District Attorney, Richard Read, said he planned to have Solomon’s case transferred from the juvenile courts to the Superior Court so that he could be tried as an adult for aggravated assault, cruelty to children, and weapons violations. Nonetheless, because of his age, Solomon was going to be held in a juvenile facility until he

Solomon, T. J.

reached the age of majority. The hearing for the transfer was placed on a fast track and scheduled for June 1, approximately two weeks later. The transfer hearing actually did not begin until August 9, and was held in front of juvenile-court judge William Schneider. It lasted two and one half days. On August 11, Judge Schneider determined that Solomon would be tried in Rockdale County Superior Court on 21 felony charges. If convicted of all of the charges, Solomon could have faced up to 351 years in prison. During the hearing, Garland argued that Solomon, who had been taking Ritalin since the fourth grade, had the maturity of an 11-year-old. He further presciently warned that if Solomon was put in the adult system, he would one day try to kill himself. Schneider partly based his decision on the fact that the shooting seemed to be a copycat shooting. Solomon had left a suicide note at home on the morning of May 20, in which he “expressed allegiance to his ‘brothers and sisters related to the trenchcoat mafia.’ ” In his mind, these individuals included Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the shooters in the Columbine massacre. When discussing that event with friends at school, Solomon had stated that he was a better gunman than either Harris or Klebold and that such a massacre should have happened at Heritage High School a long time ago. Read planned to take Solomon’s case to Rockdale County’s grand jury on September 7. Garland appealed this plan, arguing that Solomon was mentally ill and belonged in a mental institution. In February 2000, the Georgia Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled that Solomon was not out of touch with reality and could be tried as an adult. At some point in February, Solomon’s parents were interviewed on television. They read a letter from him apologizing for the shootings. In that letter, Solomon said, “It is hard to describe how dark and isolated I felt leading up to the date of my mistake. It almost made everything in my life not worth waiting for.” In the letter Solomon did not clarify his motives for the shootings. According to some of his friends, he was depressed and upset over a fight and a breakup he had with his girlfriend, Kara Ward. Ward had been the same age as Solomon when the shootings took place. According to Ward, she and Solomon had not broken up but had simply had a fight. The fight was over the fact that, according to Ward, Solomon was uncommunicative. Solomon, however, had perceived this fight as a breakup. On October 2, 2000, Solomon pleaded both guilty and guilty but mentally ill to all charges against him. He entered two pleas because Read did not want to accept the plea of guilty but mentally ill. Superior Court Judge Sidney Nation set sentencing for November 8. At the November hearing, Nation sentenced Solomon to 40 years on charges of aggravated assault. Nation told Solomon at the sentencing hearing that he would be eligible for parole in 18 years. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles told Solomon in May that he would not be considered for pardon until he had served 36 years of his sentence.

447

448

South America and School Crime and Violence

While he was in prison, Solomon was given Prozac. As Garland had predicted, Solomon tried to commit suicide. In January 2001, he took a one month’s supply of Elavil and ended up hospitalized for three months. After his recovery, Solomon was placed under 24-hour suicide watch in the infirmary at Arrendale State Prison. In August 2001, Nation agreed to hold a post-sentencing hearing. On August 17, the judge reduced Solomon’s sentence from 40 years, which would have meant that he would be eligible for parole after 36 years, to 20 years, which means he is eligible for parole after 18 years, around the time of his 33rd birthday in 2017. In some ways, Solomon was not a typical school shooter. Before he moved to Conyers, Solomon and his family lived in Kernersville, North Carolina. In Kernersville, he was a member of the Boy Scouts, went to the YMCA, and spent a lot of time with his stepfather. Even in Conyers, Solomon had friends, was a Boy Scout, went to church, and was involved in sports. His stepfather also made sure that he took a gun safety classes. Solomon was an excellent shot, which explains why his friends believe that he had no intention to kill anyone on May 20—if he had wanted to kill someone, they say, he had the gun skills to do it. Scott Sheidlower Further Reading Cloud, J. (1999, May 31). Just a routine school shooting. Time, 153(21), 34. Retrieved January 19, 2009, from Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost. Farber, H., & Stafford, L. (1999, August 11). Parents mystified as to what set off son: Mom, stepdad say Solomon on Ritalin since 4th grade—changed three years ago. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from Custom Newspapers, Gale. Roche, T. (2001, May 28). Voices from the cell. Time. Retrieved December 18, 2008, from http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,999966,00.html Tryggsted, E. (2000, March 7). Former principal recalls day of terror. Savannah Morning News. Retrieved December 17, 2008, from http://old.savvannahnow .com/stories/030700/LOCconference.shtml

South America and School Crime and Violence School violence in South America has been a problem endemic to this region for decades. Rates of violence have been growing recently, however, because of a confluence of two factors: The countries of this region have been increasing the rate at which children enroll in school and the period of time for which they remain in the public education programs. In years past, the dropout rate was much higher in South America.

South America and School Crime and Violence

Students dash across the Henrique Forei school yard in Rio de Janeiro on July 12, 2006. This school provides educational services for students in the Fazendinha shantytown and is frequently disturbed by violence from local gangs. It served as a battleground between police and a local gang, in a conflict that resulted in 6 children wounded by bullets and 11 more hurt by shards of glass. (AP/Wide World Photos)

The roots of violence in schools in this region are attributed to the structure of this region’s society. Approximately 32% of the residents of South America live in poor urban communities. Often these metropolises are sprawling, unplanned cities in which tens of thousands of people live in substandard housing and are served only sporadically by municipal utilities like running water and electric power. Schools are not seen by the governments of this region as institutions through which to provide education as a right to their citizens, but rather as places to exert control and maintain class formation. A significant number of youth from the lowest economic class drop out of school before finishing their secondary level of education. Many of the males from this sector eventually join gangs and further contribute to the cycle of violence in their own communities. This trend can, in a large part, be explained by the sociological assertion that criminals tend to act in a rational manner. Because South American society offers little social mobility to those born into the poorest class, crime—rather than education—is seen as the most logical path for escaping poverty.

449

450

South America and School Crime and Violence

While most countries in South America have officially outlawed corporal punishment in schools, UNICEF reports that this practice remains common. Notably, children and teenagers in this region are exposed to an extraordinary amount of violence compared to their peers in Western society. Violence within the school walls consists of students abusing other students, students abusing teachers, and teachers abusing students. For example, in Argentina, 23% of students in one study reported that they bullied other students at least several times, while 10% stated that they physically attacked their classmates. Students in the same study volunteered that 8% bullied teachers, while an additional 3% attacked their instructors. In Brazil, the numbers are even more alarming: In a study of 12,000 students from 143 schools in six state capitals, 84% described their schools as violent, while 70% stated that they were victims of violence. In addition to the significant numbers of young men who join gangs, many poverty-stricken school-aged youth are forced to live in the streets. There, they are subject to a wide array of abuses, ranging from crime to prostitution to drug addiction to murder. The problem of child murder is particularly dire in Brazil, a nation that accounts for more than half of South America’s total population. Thousands of young people die every year as a result of violent acts, including 45% of the adolescents whose lives end annually in Brazil. Some experts predict that based on current trends, 33,000 adolescents in Brazil will die violently in 2012. Colombia’s homicide rate is 84.4 children killed per 100,000 youths. On average, South America has a rate of 26 homicides per 100,000 youths—the third highest rate of any region in the world. To put this figure in perspective, the corresponding rate in the United States is 11 youth homicides per 100,000 population. The issue of gangs is not a footnote in this situation. On the contrary, this problem is so immense that two of Brazil’s largest cities, Sao Paulo and Rio De Janeiro, have been overrun by gang violence. A sizable number of these gang members are “child soldiers” (as they are referred to by authorities), not dissimilar to the situation found in some areas of both Africa and Asia. In fact, in addition to being pressed into gangs, South American youth as young as nine and 10 years old are sometimes forced to bear arms for various rebel militias in places such as Peru and Colombia. The children who fight in these conflicts and activities are not the only ones affected by this challenging situation. Six million of Colombia’s 17 million children are affected by the toll exacted by these war-like conditions. The emotional stress inflicted by the ongoing conflict is yet another factor that impinges on South American children’s ability to live the tranquil lives one might expect youths to enjoy. In addition to the obvious challenges faced by this dysfunctional society, large swaths of the South American continent are governed by drug lords. There, public schools do not exist in adequate numbers, as the virtual warlords do not wish to see

South America and School Crime and Violence

such institutions exist. This vacuum is being addressed on a limited basis by the U.S. Agency for International Aid’s (USAID) Alternative Development Program, which funds such infrastructure projects in foreign countries as part of the U.S. efforts to reengineer such problematic socioeconomic situations. Another plague running rampant among portions of South America’s schoolaged population is child prostitution. This crime varies greatly across the continent, with Brazil being identified as the most notorious center of child prostitution and trafficking. While many countries have laws forbidding such activities, child prostitution as well as sex tourism and associated exploitation have been identified as huge industries in South America. Peru’s Amazon region is one where this problem is especially common. Children are often led into this path through the enticement of being offered work. This lure often proves irresistible, as the widespread poverty found throughout South America creates a tremendous pressure on children to contribute to their household’s economic survival. As numerous studies have shown, children who prematurely enter the workforce have a relatively high risk (compared to those who do not follow this path) of becoming delinquent, being involved in criminal activities, and dropping out of school. In addition, much higher rates of alcohol and drug abuse are found among the population of children who are working. The rate of alcoholism in this population has also been found to be greatly out of proportion to the general population. Among 14-year-olds that are working, the average rate of alcoholism has been found to be 30%. In secondary school, it is often found to exceed 50%. This pattern becomes all the more serious when one considers that studies demonstrate a significant number of those persons arrested for committing homicide were intoxicated either during the act or shortly before it. Drug abuse among South American students is widespread, although the particular substance of choice varies from country to country. For example, ecstasy is used by many students in Colombia, but not those elsewhere in South America; the use of inhalants is popular among Brazilian students, but not among other South American students. Cocaine use is particularly high in Argentina, Colombia, and Brazil, but not in the rest of the continent. Methamphetamine use is prevalent in Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia, and Argentina, but is barely found in Peru, a country with a pattern of very low drug abuse overall. With regard to marijuana, its use among 14-year-olds in South America is relatively minor, though members of Uruguay’s general population increase their use of this drug by four times by the time schoolchildren outgrow their adolescent years. The overall issue of crime and violence in South American schools is a complex one. Currently, although universal elementary and secondary education is officially available to all school-aged children in this area, attendance is not always possible or probable. Inflated enrollment rates are often reported, with the counts including students who are not in fact attending or who do not remain in school

451

452

Southern Poverty Law Center

for the full day of classes. In addition, many young people of school age who reside in urban slums or shantytowns are not visible in the census records and are ignored by the education establishment. This neglect makes them vulnerable to greater threats related to crime and violence. Len Lubitz Further Reading Buvinic, M., Morrison, A., & Shifter, M. (1999). Violence in Latin America and the Caribbean: A framework for action. Technical Study, Sustainable Development Department, Inter-American Development Bank. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsacd/cd66/1073eng.pdf Cardoso, R., & Verner, D. (2006, December). School drop-out and push-out factors in Brazil: The role of early parenthood, child labor, and poverty. Discussion Paper No. 2515. Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). Magaly, S. (2006, July). Insecurity and violence as a new power relation in Latin America. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 606, 178–195. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre: http://www.unicef-irc.org/datasets/data _sets_int.html UNICEF: Key Issues on Child Protection: http://www.unicef.org/lac/Key_ info_on_Child_Protection(1).pdf

Southern Poverty Law Center In 1971, lawyers Morris Dees and Joe Levin created the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a civil rights law firm. SPLC’s first president was Julian Bond, who is well known for his civil rights work. Bond currently serves on the board of directors. Today, this nonprofit organization is known across the world for its work tracking hate and extremist groups, litigating cases involving white supremacists, and providing educational resources on acceptance through its teaching arm, Teaching Tolerance. SPLC’s Intelligence Project staff monitor the number and activity of white supremacist and other hate groups. This information is then provided on the organization’s website as well as disseminated to law enforcement and media. It is also shared with the public through SPLC’s quarterly magazine, Intelligence Report. Intelligence Project staff also serve as expert witnesses in trials involving hate crimes and at conferences, and they provide training to police, schools, and other interested community groups.

Spencer, Brenda

In the 1980s, SPLC helped win several anti-discrimination victories, including equal benefits for women in the armed forces, the establishment of more inclusive hiring practices for police in Alabama, an end to the involuntary sterilization of women receiving welfare, and reform of conditions in prisons and mental health facilities. Its staff have also addressed issues related to worker safety, tax equity, flying of the confederate flag at the Alabama state capitol, medical services for the poor, and equitable education for homeless children. In Nixon v. Brewer (a suit brought by SPLC), the U.S. Supreme Court determined that Alabama’s districting system was unfair and was not representing black voters. SPLC is currently working on projects related to immigrant justice and the school-to-prison pipeline. In 1991, SPLC founded Teaching Tolerance as a means to prevent hate. Teaching Tolerance assists K–12 teachers by providing print and online resources for classroom use twice per year. Teaching Tolerance also provides free multimedia kits to educators on topics related to civil rights and anti-bias issues. These resources are used by more than 400,000 educators. Teaching Tolerance’s website (www.tolerance.org) features a searchable index of classroom activities for all levels of the K–12 curriculum. Topics include gay rights, responding to bias in the school, understanding and accepting those with disabilities, environmental justice, and much more. The site also has links for parents that provide information on teaching tolerance in the home, as well as information specific to younger children and teens. Every year in November, Teaching Tolerance sponsors “Mix It Up Day” at lunch, for which it provides free materials and organizational resources for schools hosting the event; this activity is designed to get students to interact with others in the cafeteria. More than 10,000 schools participate in the event each year. Nick Sciullo Further Reading Southern Poverty Law Center: http://www.splcenter.org/index.jsp Teaching Tolerance: http://www.tolerance.org/about/index.html

Spencer, Brenda On January 29, 1979, 16-year-old Brenda Spencer killed two and injured nine at Cleveland Elementary School in San Diego, California. The school was located across the street from her house, so Spencer simply shot out of a window in her home while students waited outside for the school gate to open. She killed Principal Burton Wragg as he tried to protect the children. Head Custodian Mike Suchar was killed as he tried to assist Wragg. One police officer was killed as well.

453

454

Spencer, Brenda

After she fired 30 rounds, Spencer barricaded herself in her home for almost seven hours. Police tried to talk her out, while Spencer claimed that she would come out shooting. In the end, she surrendered to police. Spencer has gone down in infamy as one of the first school shooters, as one of the only female shooters, and for her famous quote on why she committed her crime: “I don’t like Mondays.” Spencer had a history of deviant activity. Neighbors claimed she was involved in petty theft and drug abuse, and was chronically truant. She was obsessed with guns—an obsession her father fueled when he bought her a .22-caliber semiautomatic rifle for Christmas in 1978, along with 500 rounds of ammunition. Yet another neighbor who claimed to be a close friend described Spencer as generally happy. A classmate called her nice, but said her fellow students were scared of her because she talked about killing a lot. Spencer told classmates that she was often stoned on LSD, marijuana, or some other drug. At the time of the shooting, Spencer was just 5 feet 1 inch tall and weighed only 90 pounds. When asked why she shot at the students and officials, Spencer claimed it was fun and a way to liven up the day. It was easy, she said, like “shooting ducks in a pond.” She claimed that she enjoyed killing “a pig” (police officer) and wanted to kill more. She later claimed that she had been under the influence of alcohol and PCP but that investigators and prosecutors had conspired to hide her toxicology results. While investigators did find beer and whiskey bottles around her home, they say that results did not show Spencer was intoxicated. Psychologist Jonathan Fast has argued that Spencer suffered from some type of epilepsy, which is two to four times more common among violent offenders than among members of the general population. Spencer was tried as an adult and pleaded guilty to two counts of murder and assault with a deadly weapon. She was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison, which she is still serving at California Institute for Women in Chico, California. She has been denied parole four times, most recently in 2009. She is not eligible for parole again until 2019. In her 2001 parole hearing, Spencer claimed for the first time that her father had physically and sexually abused her. Spencer’s shooting inspired a song called “I Don’t Like Mondays” by the Boomtown Rats, as well as a documentary film called The Killing of America. Her famous phrase was also written on a wall in the popular 1980s movie The Breakfast Club. One of the students who survived the attack, Chris Stanley, was honored as Teacher of the Year in San Diego in 2007. He claims it was the heroic educators who tried to help that day who inspired him to teach. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Fast, J. (2008). Ceremonial violence: A psychological explanation of school shootings. Woodstock, NY: Overland Press.

Spur Posse

O’Toole, M. (2000). The school shooter: A threat assessment perspective. Quantico, VA: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Rowe, P. (2007, October 6), 1979 school shootings inspired boy to teach. San Diego Tribune. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.signonsandiego.com/ uniontrib/20071006/news_1n6teacher

Spur Posse On March 18, 1993, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department arrested a group of teenage boys in Lakewood, California. Nine members of this group, who called themselves the Spur Posse, were charged with a variety of sex crimes, ranging from lewd conduct with a 10-year-old to rape. As details emerged, it became clear that the boys were seeking infamy for their sexual conquests. The group was estimated to include between 20 and 30 individuals. One of the founding members of the group named it the Spur Posse because he was a fan of National Basketball Association (NBA) star David Robinson, who had just been traded to the San Antonio Spurs. Members of the group kept points on how many sexual conquests they had, and agreed to wear the jersey of a professional athlete whose number was the same as their amount. They even decided to take on the name of the athlete. Points could be counted only for sexual penetration, and only with a girl one time. Thus the idea was to have as many sexual partners as possible. The girls were referred to as “no-names” and whores, even though many of them really liked the popular boys. One member boasted of having sexual intercourse with 67 girls over a four-year-period. The boys also engaged in group sex so as to rack up more points, and even began videotaping their conquests. Eventually, prosecutors dropped all but one of the charges, as they deemed most of the acts consensual. One member of the posse was convicted of lewd conduct with a 10-year-old and spent one year in the Kirby Juvenile Detention Center. He later explained that the young girl was selected because he needed more points so he could “make a name for himself.” Some of the parents defended their boys, claiming they only did what “any red-blooded American boy” would do. Once news of the scandal broke, media became obsessed with the Spur Posse. Members of the group appeared on The Jenny Jones Show, on the cover of The New York Times, and in Newsweek, Penthouse, and many other major news and popular culture outlets. This attention gave the boys the notoriety they sought. At the same time, people began referring to Lakewood as “Rapewood.” Interestingly, some of the boys were fairly successful students. Billy Shehan was in the school’s gifted program and ended up graduating with honors. Others did go on to commit crimes. Founder Dana Belman was sentenced to 10 years in

455

456

Steinha¨user, Robert

state prison for burglary and fraud, another member served time for assault, and a third was killed in a street fight. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Faludi, S. (1999). Stiffed: The betrayal of the American man. New York: William Morrow. Finley, L. (Ed.). (2007). Encyclopedia of school crime and violence. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Smolowe, J., & Lafferty, L. (1993, April 5). Sex with a scorecard. Time. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171, 978157,00.html

Steinha¨user, Robert On April 26, 2002, 19-year-old Robert Steinha¨ user opened fire at Johannes Gutenberg secondary school in Erfurt, Germany, killing 13 teachers, two students, and one police officer. He wore a black Ninja-style outfit and a black ski mask. After declaring, “That’s enough for today,” he committed suicide by turning the gun on himself. The massacre appears to have been motivated by revenge against teachers. Steinha¨user had failed a required university entrance exam in 2001 and was denied the opportunity to retake the exam one year later because he had missed classes and faked excuse notes. The Erfurt massacre is one of the worst school shootings in history. More people were killed as a result of Steinha¨ user’s killing spree (16) than were killed at Columbine High School (13) in Littleton, Colorado, 1999. At the time, the minimum age for gun ownership in Germany was 18. Steinha¨user was legally entitled to own firearms and was a member of two gun clubs. He carried two weapons into the school, a 9-mm Glock 17 (a semi-automatic pistol) and a pump-action (slider) shotgun, though he used only the former in the massacre. Steinha¨user had valid licenses for both weapons. According to Blenkinsop (2002), the Erfurt mass killings coincidentally occurred just before the German parliament passed legislation that tightened gun laws. Pump-action shotguns were banned in the new legislation, and the minimum legal age for gun ownership was raised from 18 to 21. In addition to being a gun enthusiast, Steinha¨user secretly owned a collection of videos that featured “extreme use of weapons” and violent video games, according to a representative of the German police. In the wake of the Erfurt attack, some conservative critics of the German government, such as the leader of the opposition party, called for the banning of such “killer games” and tougher controls on those who sell them.

Steinha¨user, Robert

Gutenburg secondary school access is blocked off by crime scene tape after the deadly shooting that killed 13 teachers, 2 students, and 1 police officer in Erfurt, Germany, on April 26, 2002. (AP/Wide World Photos)

The Erfurt massacre is of one of several such crimes that took place during the 1990s and 2000s, although most happened in the United States. The increase in frequency in school shootings has sparked discussion about what should be done to avoid future massacres. The levels of violence exhibited, the inability to predict such incidents, and their sensational nature have resulted in widespread publicity and speculation on the approaches to thwart future school shooting sprees. Most strategies have focused on “zero-tolerance” approaches—that is, policies that administer punishments for infractions such as possession of drugs and weapons in school. Such policies have also been used as strategies against behaviors such as bullying. Zero-tolerance approaches are controversial. Casella (2001), for example, describes them as responses that do little more than appease the fears of parents and the scrutiny of journalists, rather than attempt to grapple with social explanations of violence such as school shootings. The proliferation of zero-tolerance policies belies the fact that school shootings, although horrific and captivating of public interest, are exceedingly rare. The degree of reaction—in the form of journalism, research, books, policies, and public discussion—is disproportionate to the actual numbers of school shootings that have taken place in the last few decades. Such preoccupation with school

457

458

Steinha¨user, Robert

shootings constitutes a moral panic—a term that refers to overreactions to a social phenomenon that is extraordinary or unusual but is widely perceived as a threat to social order and norm. Media coverage of school shootings tends to focus on the upbringing and psychological state of the perpetrator to explain why such massacres happen. For example, according to a BBC report, Steinha¨user was described as “normal” by those who knew him. The report added that Faced with this inability to explain Robert Steinhauser’s individual psychology, it was left to Interior Minister Otto Schily to pose the wider question: “We must also ask ourselves the deeper question of what actually is going on in our society when a young person causes such disaster in such a way.” To answer that question is difficult, especially if the focus of the question is a gender-neutral “young person.” News reports often describe school shooters as “youngsters” or “kids.” Sensationalizing the Columbine massacre, Time magazine, on its May 3, 1999, cover story, described the perpetrators as “the monsters next door.” The driving question of such commentary is simple: Why? Gender-neutral language is perhaps one of the reasons that concrete insights are elusive. It is not generic “kids” or “monsters” who perpetrate school shootings. Rather, the overwhelming majority of school shooters are boys. One notable exception is the case of Brenda Ann Spencer, who, at the age of 16, shot and killed two adults and injured eight students in San Diego, California, in 1979. The shooting inspired the hit song “I Don’t Like Mondays” by the British rock group the Boomtown Rats. Another obvious but mostly overlooked fact about school shooters, including Steinha¨user, is that the majority are not only male, but also white. An exception is Seung-Hui Cho, a 23-year-old South Korean student who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech University in 2007. Wise (2001) argues that whiteness as an unnamed pattern explains why the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has not created “profiles” of school shooters, as agents would have if the majority of such killers were black. Whiteness as a commonality has mostly escaped meaningful analysis. The Spencer and Cho cases aside, the perspective that school shootings are perpetrated by disturbed individual youth is “dangerously shortsighted,” according to anti-violence activists Jackson Katz and Sut Jhally (1999). They emphasize the gendered nature of school shootings in their argument that school shootings are “not a case of kids killing kids. This is boys killing boys and boys killing girls.” The socialization of boys, Katz and Jhally argue, is heavily invested in reducing boys’ emotional capacities in favor of fostering and rewarding aggression, toughness, and individualism. Combined with social norms of masculinity, the mass media are a significant factor in promoting a “tough guise” (Jhally, 1999) to which

Steinha¨user, Robert

boys and men are expected to adhere to gain masculine status. From such a perspective, boys are taught to deal with conflict in verbally and physically aggressive ways. Of course, not all boys subscribe to such normalized notions of masculinity. Nevertheless, socially detrimental behaviors such as aggression are glamorized and idealized in various forms of mass-media entertainment aimed at boys. Further, boys who do not or cannot subscribe to socially normative ways of sounding and acting like a boy are typically rejected as sissies, fags, or queers. The Steinha¨user case, like other cases of school massacres, incited a call not only for tighter gun controls, but also for bans of violent video games and other forms of media. It also compelled many Germans to consider that school shootings are no longer a phenomenon specific to the United States. While theories and strategies have been offered to explain and prevent school shootings, Newman et al. (2004) suggest that doing so requires the development of a theory that is predictive in its capabilities. Most youth are exposed to violent media and many have guns at their disposal, yet school shootings remain extremely rare. Thus any such theory, Newman et al. argue, is highly unlikely to be valid. Gerald Walton Further Reading Bergling, T. (2001). Sissyphobia: Gay men and effeminate behavior. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park. Blenkinsop, P. (2002, April 27). Shootings to reignite debate on gun control. Toronto Star, p. A26. Caistor, N. (2002, April 28). Profile of a teenage killer: “Why?” is the question many Germans are asking. BBC News Online. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1956206.stm Casella, R. (2001). At zero tolerance: Punishment, prevention, and school violence. New York: Peter Lang. Connell, R. W. (2007). Masculinities (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity. Glassner, B. (1999). The culture of fear: Why Americans are afraid of the wrong things. New York: Basic. Helm, T. (2002, April 29). Teenage gunman wove web of deceit, police say: Massacre in Germany: Parents thought he was taking his final exams. National Post, p. A12. Jhally, S. (Director). (1999). Tough guise: Violence, media, and the crisis in masculinity. [Motion picture]. Northampton, MA: Media Education Foundation. Katz, J., & Jhally, S. (1999, May 2). The national conversation in the wake of Littleton is missing the mark. Boston Globe, p. E1. Retrieved from http:// www.jacksonkatz.com/pub_missing.html Larkin, R. W. (2007). Comprehending Columbine. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

459

460

Stop Bullying Now

Murphy, C. L. (2002, April 30). Playing the game: Germany’s teenage killer. BBC News Online. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ europe/1959632.stm Newman, C. S., Fox, C., Harding, D. J., Mehta, J., & Roth, W. (2004). Rampage: The social roots of school shootings. New York: Basic Books. Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Wise, T. (2001, March 6). School shootings and white denial. Retrieved November 25, 2008, from http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/white08.htm

Stop Bullying Now Stopbullyingnow.org is a bilingual website (English and Spanish) that was created and is maintained by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration. Its tagline, “Take a stand. Lend a hand. Stop Bullying Now!”, and its youth-friendly graphics and design make it accessible and appealing for youth and educators who are working to reduce bullying in their schools and communities. The primary audience for this website is middle school students (grades 6–9). The website is divided into four main areas: “What bullying is,” “What you can do,” “Cool stuff,” and “What adults can do.” The “What bullying is” section of the website offers basic definitions and examples of bullying in youth-friendly language. According to the site, “Bullying happens when someone hurts or scares another person on purpose and the person being bullied has a hard time defending himself or herself. Usually, bullying happens over and over.” There is also a short quiz to help youth reflect on their own behaviors and identify if they have a tendency to bully others. The “What you can do” section of resources offers tangible suggestions to students who are interested in addressing the problem of bullying in their own school or community. It includes a “Tip sheet for kids” that prompts children to take actions such as the following: write down where and when you see bullying happen, find out how bullying is handled at your school, stop bullying when you see it, and meet with school leaders to talk about your ideas. The “Cool stuff” portion of the website is the most kid-friendly. It includes animated webisodes that talk about the various issues that students face when dealing with bullying. In addition, a series of games use the characters introduced in the webisodes to reinforce the information presented throughout the website. The “What adults can do” section of this site provides a list of available resources for any adult interested in addressing the issue of bullying. There are also two specific areas that are designed to provide tailored information for families and for educators. The “family corner” gives information to family members about the role

Suburban School Violence

they can play in supporting a child who may be experiencing bullying at school. The “educators corner” offers information for teachers, administrators, and other adults in schools. Administrators are encouraged to educate their staff, document incidents of bullying, and research bullying intervention programs. There is also a guide titled “Misdirections in Bullying Prevention and Intervention” that administrators may find useful. The section for teachers also includes downloadable comic books that build on the storylines from the webisodes as well as teacher’s guides that offer hints on implementing these activities in a classroom. The Stop Bullying Now site is a comprehensive and user-friendly website that can connect students, families, educators, and community members with valuable resources and information to help them address the problem of bullying in their communities. Elizabeth J. Meyer Further Reading www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov

Suburban School Violence Due to visibility, excessive media coverage, and other factors, very often when we speak of school violence, we picture urban schools and urban violence. This is not a new perception. In 1973, William J. Chambliss published “The Saints and The Roughnecks,” a study that compared the delinquency and deviance of an upperclass group of boys and a lower-class group of boys. While the study did not deal with overt violence, it did deal with potentially violent acts of the upper-class boys (the “Saints”), including high-speed, reckless, and drunk driving; playing chicken with the car lights out; and removing barricades and lanterns from hazardous spots in the road. The Roughnecks’ lower-class violence involved mostly fighting. Chambliss felt that the Saints’ violence was worse than that of the Roughnecks, but the Saints were not thought of as delinquent by either the police, the townspeople, or the school. Chambliss attributes the difference in perception to three factors: visibility (the lower-class Roughnecks hung out on the corner, the upper-class Saints got in their cars and drove out of town, committing their deviance out of sight of their peer adults), demeanor (the Roughnecks expressed hostility and disdain when caught, whereas the Saints were apologetic and penitent when confronted), and bias (the lower-class boy drinking in the alley is perceived as more deviant than the upper-class boy who drinks in a club and then drives drunk). This study reflects the current attitudes of many toward urban and suburban school violence. Since the advent of horrible school disasters such as the shooting at Columbine High School in 1999, in the nice suburban town of Littleton, Colorado, society has

461

462

Suburban School Violence

had to rethink the relationship between suburban schools and the potential for violence. Not only was the Columbine massacre a school tragedy of huge magnitude, but, because of live media coverage, people across the United States were able to watch the event unfold in real time. This event put a vivid new suburban face on school violence, or at least on school shootings. During the mid-1970s, while urban school crime leveled off and began to decline, suburban school crime was on the rise, so perhaps instances of suburban school violence should not have caught Americans as much by surprise. Generally speaking, schools are relatively safe places to be. Although many people believe that overall school violence is currently on the rise, in fact this is not so. In the last decade, types of school violence other than shootings have decreased by approximately 50%. Most students, particularly those in suburban areas, will not experience any type of violence at school, nor will most schools experience a shooting; among homicides where school-aged children are the victims, less than 1% occur at school or while traveling to or from school. School shootings are rare events. In any given year, there may be from 12 to 20 school shootings in the more than 100,000 U.S. schools. The intense fear of school shootings is the result of a “moral panic,” fueled by the media, politicians, public concern, special-interest groups, and “triggering events.” After the Columbine school shooting, for example, two-thirds of Americans surveyed in a Gallup poll felt that a similar incident was either very likely or somewhat likely to happen in their schools. According to the U.S. Department of Education and Bureau of Justice Statistics, the percentage of suburban schools experiencing violent incidents is smaller than the percentage of urban or town schools experiencing such events, but larger than the percentage of rural schools subjected to this kind of violence. For example, more than 82% of urban schools experienced violent incidents, as compared to 74% of suburban schools, 80% of town schools, and almost 70% of rural schools (using 2007–2008 data). There is a larger gap in the urban/suburban/ rural rates of gang-related school crime, with urban rates close to 34%, suburban rates close to 19%, town rates nearly 17%, and rural rates less than 11%. Urban schools reported 35.8 violent incidents per 1,000 students, while suburban schools experienced 22.8 incidents per 1,000 students, and town and rural schools each had 26.4 incidents per 1,000 students. Violent incidents include a broad range of behaviors, such as actual attacks or fights; threats of attacks or fights; robbery, with or without a weapon; and rape or other sexual battery. Serious violent incidents included all of these actions (except threats) that were committed with a weapon, plus robbery committed with or without a weapon. Without the threats category and non-weapon incidents, there is a greater difference between the urban and suburban school violence rates, with urban schools experiencing 1.9 incidents per 1,000 students, and suburban schools experiencing 0.9 incident per 1,000 students. (Town and rural schools rates were 1.2 and 0.8

Suburban School Violence

incidents per 1,000 students, respectively.) Six percent of suburban teachers report that they were threatened with a physical injury by a student, as compared to 10% of urban teachers and 5% of rural teachers. While urban schools have higher rates of violence, it is interesting to note that suburban schools have higher rates of disciplinary actions taken against students. For example, with regard to removal of students for the remainder of the school year for possession of an explosive device or a weapon other than a firearm, urban schools removed 3.9% of their students, while suburban schools removed 6.2%. Suburban schools have a slight edge over urban schools when it comes to written plans for responding to certain violent incidents. For example, 84.9% of suburban schools have a plan for shootings, versus 83% of urban schools. Almost 97% of suburban schools, versus almost 95% of urban schools, have plans for bomb threats or incidents. Suburban schools also have a greater edge in regard to drilling students on the various crisis situation plans: 57.5% of suburban schools versus 50.9% of urban schools drilled students on plans for school shootings; 67.4% suburban schools drilled students on bomb threat plans, whereas only 58.3% of urban schools did the same. With regard to certain safety precautions, 11.6% of urban schools, as compared to 2.5% of suburban schools, conducted random metal detector checks. However, with regard to the random use of drug-sniffing dogs, suburban schools outdid urban schools 16.2% to 11.7%, respectively. Suburban schools also outdid urban schools in the use of security cameras: 57.5% to 53.3%, respectively. It is difficult to speculate on the meaning of these numbers without further data. Do suburban schools have more cause to take action? Are they using more caution, reacting to less severe incidents (“widening the net”)? Do they simply have more resources? Or is there some other explanation for these differences? The Columbine tragedy set off public debates on the effects on teenagers of violent movies and video games and heavy metal music, proper parental supervision of teenagers, the Goth culture, the decline of religion in public education, the availability of weapons and explosives, and the widespread use (many would say overuse) of pharmaceutical antidepressants by teens. Schools, including suburban schools, expressed concern over the issues of school security, emergency communication systems, and the proliferation of bullying in the schools (most, if not all, school shooters have been bullied). In fact, while other types of violence were actually on the decline in the schools, bullying was on the rise. Roughly 30% of students are involved in bullying, as the bully, the victim, or both. There is little variation in bullying rates among urban, suburban, and rural schools. Among urban schools, 27.5% report incidents of bullying; among suburban schools, this rate is 24.6%. In recent years, the number of anti-bullying programs has increased as schools try to counteract this problem. In Littleton, Colorado, as well as in other suburban settings that have experienced school shootings, people wondered in the aftermath, “How could this happen here?”

463

464

Suburban School Violence

Whereas some expect to see violence in the urban schools, the same violence in suburban schools is often described as being a “complete surprise.” In reality, school shooters are almost the polar opposite of the “typical” violent juvenile offender. School shooters often attend affluent suburban high schools, belong to the middle class, have not been violent or aggressive in the past, and are white. Recent research indicates that more than 26% of males and more than 8% of females in suburban areas carry weapons for protection or in anticipation of a possible fight. Males in the study who carried weapons appeared to be at risk for negative behaviors or outcomes such as suicide, depression, and stress. Almost half of the suburban students reported a problem with anger management. It has long been a theory that urban school shootings occur mainly as a result of drug trafficking dynamics, racial segregation, and poverty, with shooters targeting specific individuals. Urban shooters may be in fear of their own lives. In contrast, shootings in suburban school settings, which are devoid of much of the poverty, racial bias, and violent dynamics of the drug trade, have been compared to “rampage shootings”—that is, incidents based on general rather than specific grievances. In the case of the Columbine massacre, for example, it has been hypothesized that the shootings were a deadly reaction to the constant bullying, humiliation, and violence meted out to the outcasts by the dominant elite, particularly athletes (“jocks”). In fact, there really is no consistent profile of the school shooter. Pointing to the moody, depressed, angry, isolated, weird kid with low self-esteem who is harassed, in emotional pain, does not fit in with his or her peers, and dresses funny is not helpful, because most—if not all—youths fit this description at some point during their teen years. School shooters come from all types of family backgrounds, have academic prowess that ranges from failing to honor roll, and may be loners or have many friends. Most have no disciplinary records. Most shooters would not have been identified on any profile. Indeed, with the use of profiling, we run the risk of “net widening”—that is, over-identification of those who stand out because of their behavior, dress, or tastes in music. After the Columbine shooting and other tragedies, the concept of zero tolerance was further emphasized in the schools. Zero tolerance, an idea that sprang from the 1994 Gun-Free Schools Act’s stipulation that any child caught with a firearm at school was to be expelled for a year, was expanded in many schools to include automatic expulsion for any violation of school safety rules. Corporal punishment, such as spanking, is a behavior that many would regard as violence in the schools; it has been banned in the schools in more than half of the states, and in individual jurisdictions in other states. Nevertheless, this practice persists in many schools, even in states where it has been banned. Corporal punishment has been banned in New York, for example, yet a number of cases are reported each year. Currently, some jurisdictions are attempting to reinstate it. Corporal punishment is used disproportionately on minorities and students from the lower class;

Suicide, College

thus, by inference, it is probably used less often in more affluent suburban schools. Some suggest that corporal punishment rates are lower in both urban and suburban schools than in rural schools; this may be a reflection of the rural nature of the states that retain corporal punishment. Five states—Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, and Arkansas—account for 70% of the corporal punishment cases. School violence may have a different face in the suburbs, but it is certainly present in these areas, and it is of great concern to parents, school personnel, and others across the country. As with other types of crime, the fear is worse than the reality, but the concerns still need to be addressed. Carol Lenhart Further Reading Borum, R., Cornell, D., Modzeleski, W., & Jimerson, S. (2010). What can be done about school shootings? A review of the evidence.” Educational Researcher, 39 (1), 27–37. Chambliss, W. (1973). The Saints and the Roughnecks. Society, 11(1), 24–31. Dinkes, R., Kemp, J., Baum, K., & Snyder, T. (2009). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2009. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Hawkins, S., Campanaro, A., Pits, T., & Steiner, H. (2002). Weapons in an affluent suburban school. Journal of School Violence, 1(1), 53–65. Larkin, R. (2007). Toward a theory of legitimated adolescent violence. Conference paper, American Sociological Association Annual Meeting (AN34595204) SocINDEX with Full Text. Muschert, G. ( 2007). The Columbine victims and the myth of the juvenile superpredator. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 351–366. Retrieved from http:// yvj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/4/351

Suicide, College Worldwide, there are more deaths due to suicide than due to homicides and accidents combined. Approximately 30,000 people die by suicide annually in the United States. Every day, an estimated 80 Americans successfully take their own lives and another 1,500 attempt to take their lives. Every 18 minutes in the United States, a person dies by suicide and an attempted suicide is estimated to occur every minute. Today, suicide is the ninth leading cause of death in the United States. Even more disconcerting is the fact that suicide is the second leading cause of death among college students in America. This essay discusses the prevalence of suicide among college students, explanations as to why such tragedies occur, and ways to alleviate the issue.

465

466

Suicide, College

According to a recent study that surveyed 26,000 college students at 70 U.S. college and university institutions, slightly more than half of American college students contemplate suicide at some point in their lives. In this same survey, 15% of the student sample affirmed they had “seriously considered” taking their own lives. Additionally, more than 5% of the student sample reported actually attempting suicide. This rate suggests that, at an average university or college institution with 18,000 undergraduate students, 1,080 would seriously contemplate taking their lives in any given year. According to the American College of Health Association, 1,100 suicides do, in fact, occur on college campuses annually. There are several explanations as to why suicide is so prevalent among college students. One explanation points to the overload of stress and lack of available resources to cope with stress in college institutions. According to research, one in five college undergraduate students in America reports being constantly stressed. For many incoming freshmen, college can be a very tough transition. Many students feel pressured to choose a career and succeed. Others feel lost, confused, lonely, anxious, and inadequate. Additionally, many struggle to adapt to a new environment. All of these factors can lead to stress and can eventually turn into depression. According to research, “The primary reason for suicidal thoughts is to end emotional or physical pain.” The second reason, according to the same study, is issues regarding romantic relationships. The third is a generalized desire or need to end their lives. The fourth is problems with school and academics. Although all of these explanations play a role in an individual’s decision to terminate their life, none is considered the primary reason as to why a college student, or anyone at all, would decide to take his or her own life. Instead, the primary cause for suicide among college students and all suicides in general is untreated depression. Research indicates that half of students who suffer from suicidal thoughts do not seek counseling or treatment for their distress. Explanations as to why students do not seek help include shame, embarrassment, a lack of knowledge about depression and available resources, and despondence. Depression, as defined by the American Psychological Association (APA), is a mental disorder whereby “people may experience a lack of interest and pleasure in daily activities, significant weight loss or gain, insomnia or excessive sleeping, lack of energy, inability to concentrate, feelings of worthlessness or excessive guilt and recurrent thoughts of death or suicide.” According to the APA, “depression is the most common mental disorder.” Luckily, it is manageable and treatable through a combination of therapy and medication. Data obtained through the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention suggest that depression affects at least 19 million Americans aged 18 and older annually. This number represents roughly 10% of U.S. adults. Research indicates that more American adults suffer from depression than coronary heart disease (7 million), cancer (6 million), and AIDS (200,000) combined.

Suicide, College

According to the American College of Health Association, 15% of U.S. college students were diagnosed with depression in 2007, an increase of 5% compared to four years earlier. More than 90% of the youth who successfully commit suicide had at least one mental disorder or psychiatric illness at the time of death. Roughly 50% of the time, this disorder was present but often went undetected for at least two years. “The most common diagnosis among youth are depression, substance abuse and conduct disorders.” According to data obtained from the American College Health Association, roughly 16% of college women and 10% of men in college report having been diagnosed by a professional with depression at some point in their lives. Additionally, in a national survey of college professors, 84% saw an increase in students with mental disorders or psychological problems over the previous five years. Correlated with depression and suicide among both college students and the general population are substance abuse issues. For example, in a survey about binge drinking reported by the Suicide Prevention Resource Center, approximately 44% of students interviewed reported “drinking heavily” within the two weeks before taking the survey. The majority of researchers define binge drinking as “the consumption of at least five alcoholic drinks in a single sitting for men and four for women.” In 2005, approximately 10.8 million individuals aged 12–20 (28.2% of this age group) reported drinking alcohol within the previous month. Roughly 7.2 million (18.8%) were considered binge drinkers, and another 2.3 million (6%) were deemed heavy drinkers. According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, more males than females report binge drinking—21.3% versus 16.1%, respectively. Moreover, college students ages 18–22 at full-time colleges or universities are more inclined to binge drink or drink heavily than their peers who are not enrolled in an accredited university. Even more alarming is that 48% of college drinkers interviewed in a survey reported that “drinking to get drunk” is an important reason to drink. Nearly one in four of the students in this sample consumed alcohol at least 10 times per month, and another 29% reported being inebriated at minimum 3 times per month. Furthermore, one in three college students and three in five frequent binge drinkers meet the APA’s criteria for alcohol abuse; one in 17 college students and one in five frequent binge drinkers meet the criteria for alcohol dependence. Overall, according to the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, 19% of college students in the United States aged 18–24 meet the criteria for alcohol dependence or abuse. After establishing an understanding of suicide prevalence rates among college students, explanations as to why it occurs, and major correlates of suicide, it is important to understand when suicidal indicators typically surface themselves as well as the warning signs one should be cognizant about. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide typically emerges as a

467

468

Suicide, College

substantial problem during the high school years, increases in frequency among people between the ages of 20 and 24, and shows a persistently increased incidence throughout the next two decades of life. Some warning signals that a person may be contemplating suicide have been identified: a previous attempt at suicide, frequent discussions about suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, feeling despondent and helpless, depression, changes in behavior and personality, giving away favorite possessions, and a loss of interest in friends and hobbies. Several steps have been taken to reduce the incidence of suicide in young adults, but even more avenues must be explored if we are to further alleviate the risk of suicide among college students. One example of the measures employed to address the issue can be seen in the efforts of the New York Association of School Psychologists (NYASP) in conjunction with the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH). The NYASP and OMH have developed workshops, known as SPEAK Workshops, that confront the issue of depression and suicide among college suicide. These workshops present information about the prevalence of suicide and depression, signs and symptoms of depression, signs for suicidal behavior, and available resources. The first such workshop was developed to serve faculty, staff and counselors, or other professionals deemed qualified to monitor the behavior of college students. The second workshop utilized trained psychology graduate students to train and educate other students. Having graduate students lead these events has greatly increased acceptance of these workshops, as the students perceive their trainers as classmates and peers as opposed to figures of authority. Fourteen colleges and universities in New York have participated in this workshop training. Other steps that can be taken include making high school students take a mandatory depression survey annually. Additionally, doctors should discuss depression with high school students when they have an appointment, and pamphlets about depression and suicide should be passed out in high schools and made readily available in physicians’ offices. Furthermore, incoming college freshman should be given pamphlets about depression and suicide in their university packets at every school. Most importantly, the stigma of discussing mental health and suicide must be eliminated, and medical professionals along with educational professionals should be at the forefront of this effort. Students should be encouraged to seek help, openly discuss depression and suicidal thoughts, and be reassured that they have nothing to be ashamed of. Implementation of suicide prevention programs on all college campuses is essential. Ideally, such a program should include leadership to promote suicide prevention and mental health, screening, crisis management, educational seminars, mental health services, life skills development, means restrictions, social marketing, and social network promotion. Suicide among college students in the United States is clearly a serious issue. It is a problem for a large number of youth and young adults in college as well as those

Suicide, High School

not in college (7.95 suicides per 100,000 15- to 19-year-olds, 11.97 suicides per 100,000 20- to 24-year-olds, and 12.56 suicides per 100,000 25- to 29-year-olds). Untreated depression is the primary cause for suicide. Depression can be managed and treated if someone takes the necessary step to seek help. Finally, college campuses must implement suicide prevention programs and indefatigably work toward educating their students, faculty, and staff members on this crucial issue. Rebecca Ajo Further Reading College student depression and suicide. (n.d.). American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. Retrieved May 7, 2010, from http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm? page_id=05678008-958D-8476-7CD04234DBBBFC69 Durkin, K. F., Wolfe, S. E., & Lewis, K. (2008). Binge drinking on college campus. In A. Thio, T. C. Calhoun, & A. Conyers, A. (Eds.), Readings in deviant behavior (5th ed., pp. 233–236). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Facts about suicide. (n.d.). American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. Retrieved February 2, 2010. http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home .viewpage&page_id=050fea9f-b064-4092-b1135c3a70de1fda Johnson, H. (2008, August 18). Half of college students consider suicide. MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26272639/ns/health-mental_health/ Rawe, J. (2008, May 14). When colleges go on suicide watch. Time. Retrieved May 7, 2010, from www.time.com/time.magazine/article/0,9171,1194020,00 .html Suicide Prevention Resource Center, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2004). Promoting mental health and preventing suicide in college and university settings. (Newton, MA: Education Development Center.

Suicide, High School Teenagers today are three times more likely to commit suicide compared to teenagers in the era when their parents attended high school. This increased rate reflects the fact that teenagers are facing more stress in the 21st century than their peers of a generation ago. These pressures include, but are not limited to, alcohol and drug use, family divorce, abuse and neglect, teen relationships, unexpected pregnancy, low self-esteem, depression and loneness, academic stress, confusion about being sexually active, cyberbullying, death of a friend or family member, discovering their sexual orientation (realizing that he or she identifies as gay), “fitting in,” eating disorders, guilt, and living in a violent environment. According to the Surgeon General of the United States, on average one teenager younger than the age 15 commits suicide every 2 hours.

469

470

Suicide, High School

Some of these issues may seem small or petty to adults, but to a young person they are very real and serious. High school students are less likely to have the same level of maturity and experience as an adult. When teens feel overwhelmed by their problems, they do not understand how to deal with these obstacles, which in effect causes them to fall into a depressive state. Students may feel weighed down by the problems that they face, taking what could be a minor issue and magnifying it into an unrealistic dramatization. Teenagers frequently feel that the pain they are experiencing is never ending. People who attempt to commit suicide do not really wish to die. Rather, a suicide attempt is a violent cry for help, an act of desperation that seeks attention. Individuals who take this road want someone to become aware of their problems. Because they do not know who to turn to in a time of need, they decide to act on what they know. They know that if they end their life, all of the pain and unbearable suffering that they feel will also end. This can seem like a fair trade for some people. The pain may be so powerful that it seems the only recourse they have for ending their horrific suffering is to end their life. In fact, suicide is not the answer: No pain is so great that it cannot be overcome and worked through. Suicide is often referred to as the easy way out of a difficult situation. Why do teenagers committee suicide? Teenagers can feel overwhelmed by their current situation and have no outlet to express their emotional struggles. Some teens may feel burdensome to their family, feel worthless, or have no hope for the future. If a teenager has been the victim of physical or sexual abuse, he or she is also more at risk to commit suicide; the same is true of a person who has been bullied in school and a teenager dealing with his or her homosexuality in an unsupportive family, who lacks a support network. Other students may be suffering with untreated depression or may have a medical condition, such as bipolar disorder, making them more likely to take their own life. Depression in its simplest form occurs when a hormonal imbalance in the brain causes an overwhelming feeling of sadness, loneness, grief, loss of interest, or sense of isolation from the rest of the world. Once a student attempts suicide, he or she is twice as likely to attempt suicide again; the subsequent attempt usually succeeds. Males are more successful in their attempts to commit suicide, because they tend to use more extreme measures such as strangulation, hanging, and shooting themselves. Females, by comparison, lean toward less extreme measures such as drowning, overdosing on medication, and other forms of drug use. Other means of suicide include drinking poison, inhaling carbon monoxide, suffocation, faking an accident, cutting one’s wrists, or jumping from heights. It is a myth to believe that most suicides are irrational behavior. When persons begin contemplating suicide, they generally have been dealing with their own personal issues for a length of time. It is highly unusual that a troubled person will immediately pick up a gun and decide to end his or her life. More commonly,

Suicide, High School

individuals think long and hard about how they want to die, which method of suicide they will use, and whether to write a suicide note. If written, such a note typically lists the reasons why a person would choose to take their own life. Most teenagers emit some discreet signals to their family, friends, or teachers, letting them know that they need help. Nevertheless, a small percentage of teenagers show no signs that they are experiencing a struggle. Worrisome signals include a depressed mood, substance abuse, frequently running away, family loss, talking about death, or withdrawal from friends and family. Other signs, according to the APA, include losing interest in things once loved, having difficulty dealing with one’s sexual orientation, having an unplanned pregnancy, impulsive or aggressive behavior, and frequent expressions of rage. Suicide is outlawed by only two states in the United States. Why have more states not outlawed this behavior? History has shown that when the states decided to make this activity illegal, the number of suicide attempts increased. Suicide is a controversial subject. Many people think of suicide as committing murder. Conversely, others feel that it is up to individuals to decide when they want to end their own life and that such a personal decision should not be ceded to the government. What effect does suicide have on the victim’s family members? Losing a family member, friend, or classmate has long-term effects for those who knew the victim. Beyond the obvious feelings of grief and devastation, they may suffer emotionally and physically from this traumatic experience and lose their focus on other important tasks in life. Suicide of a loved one will very likely affect survivors’ emotional state of mind for an extended amount of time. Psychotherapy, children-oriented therapy (such as playing or artwork), or physical exercise may help a person cope with these circumstances. Natasha Abdin Further Reading Berman, A., Jobes, D., & Silverman, M. (2005). Adolescent suicide: Assessment and intervention (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: America Psychological Association. Blauner, S. (2003). How I stayed alive when my brain was trying to kill me. New York: HarperCollins. Box, M. (2005). Suicide. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven. Crook, M. (2004). Teens talk about suicide. Vancouver, Canada: Arsenal Pulp Press. Krasny, R. (2010, April 9).Teen suicide puts spotlight on high-tech bullying. Reuters. Retrieved May 7, 2010, from http://www.reuters.com/article/ idUSTRE63847420100409 Murphy, J. (1999). Coping with teen suicide. New York: Rosen. Youth suicide fact sheet. (2007, December 27). National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center. Retrieved May 7, 2010, from http://www .safeyouth.org/scripts/facts/suicide.asp

471

472

Systemic/Structural Violence, College

Systemic/Structural Violence, College Systemic violence and structural violence are closely related terms. Systemic violence refers to institutional practices or procedures that adversely affect groups or individuals psychologically, mentally, culturally, economically, spiritually, or physically. In a school context, such violence is an unwanted interruption of the student’s learning process and the quest for full human potential. Structural violence refers to the kinds of harm that social structures in general may perpetrate upon individuals. In educational settings, the institution may cause new inequalities or reproduce previous inequalities held over from the student’s prior life or school experiences. Both kinds of violence occur regularly in colleges and universities worldwide. Systemic violence can occur when persons in authority limit the human potential of a student. For example, when academic advisors steer minority students into easier nonprofessional majors such as general studies (instead of the pre-med path), it effectively limits the potential earning power of those students. Structural violence happens when students are marginalized inadvertently by policies or social customs within the university, thereby introducing new inequalities or reproducing previously held disadvantages. With both types of violence, the student injuries can be overt, in the case of physical violence, or they can be hidden psychological and emotional violence. Almost always, college staff members, professors, and administrators claim their actions are intended to serve the best interests of the students. They never claim to intentionally do violence to any of their students, who are more likely than ever to be treated as “consumers” of a college education. Despite such claims, the intention of their actions is secondary to the outcome. Administrators and other officials claim not to act out of nefarious intent, but the outcome can still be a violent one for the student. Systemic or structural violence is often committed by the powerful, those protected by the law. Their acts are directed at those with little power in an effort to maintain existing social arrangements. More broadly, their actions can be understood as a deprivation of basic human rights. All people have a basic right as well as a basic need to live without violence. Because violence is socially constructed, it can be reduced significantly, if not totally eliminated. Violence in this broader perspective amplifies the effects of emotional, social, psychological, economic, and religious violence over more overt physical kinds of violence. Sheer demographics ensure that in many college classes, minority students will account for a slim proportion of the total students. This imbalance is especially significant for those students who come from a predominately minority neighborhood or high school where they did not experience such marginality. For them, such marginalization is a new phenomenon. For other students, this marginalized

Systemic/Structural Violence, College

setting is a continuation of earlier life experiences, when they were in the minority at a white majority school. If such conditions are coupled with an instructor who is intimidated or insensitive to stereotypical remarks or actions, the marginalization of the student increases. In addition, if faculty members fail to use technological advances in the classroom that may enhance learning by accommodating a diverse range of learning styles, such an action may do violence to some students. By clinging to “lectureonly” formats, for example, instructors treat students as passive recipients who have no voice in what they learn or how they learn it. Passive teaching practices avoid the affective domain, stressing knowledge that is academic but not emotional. Further, a trend toward standardization of curricula and assessments is a form of systemic violence that assumes that all students can and should be able to perform at the same level at the same time. Such standardized tests are culturally biased according to many studies. Another factor sustaining marginality is the bureaucracy surrounding financial aid. Understaffing in this vital department means that the amount of time that can be spent with each individual student is severely limited. This barrier is especially frustrating for students whose ability to attend college is critically dependent on receiving financial assistance in a timely manner. Prompt payment in such cases may determine whether the student attends college or not. Additionally, many social activities at the college level are centered on AngloAmerican culture. Although groups such as Black United Students (BUS), Black Accountants, and Black Engineers serve vital socializing roles, they tend to encourage separation between African American and Anglo-American students. The cost of a collegiate education in this country is growing at a faster pace than the U.S. economy as a whole. To slow the pace of tuition hikes, administrators have cut back on personnel, equipment, and fringe benefits. In particular, the fiscal crisis has strained the university police forces that are given the task of protecting the student body from harm. Cutbacks in security (among other factors) have enabled school shooters such as Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech and Steven Kazmierczak at Northern Illinois University to enter classrooms with weapons and begin killing or injuring scores of students within a matter of minutes. The aftermath of such a shooting is deeply painful for the entire college community. The community lacks the will to move forward with the business of the college, and there is a pervasive fear that the campus is unsafe. There is also widespread mourning for the lives lost and the sense of security that has been shattered in the wake of the tragic event. As the fiscal crisis deepens, colleges are feeling pressure to reach out to prospective students not traditionally viewed as qualifying for the college experience. Prisons, halfway houses, drug rehabilitation centers, mental health centers, and homeless shelters—once viewed as off limits for recruiting—are now seen as potential revenue streams for the cash-starved college. Agreements between these entities and the

473

474

Systemic/Structural Violence, College

college are justified in the name of public service and community involvement. However, as schools recruit from such nontraditional sources, they are likely to encounter a broader stream of public life, including persons acculturated to a street culture that is far removed from the middle-class standard expected in the college environment. Such individuals may have been socialized to more violent means of resolving disputes rather than peaceful ones, and conflicts involving these students can develop that end in overt physical violence. The effects of systemic or structural violence can be observed in students while they are still enrolled at the university. For example, to compensate for being marginalized, students may show increased sensitivity and self-consciousness concerning matters of race and may report feelings of inferiority and malaise. Some have a more angry reaction, becoming totally absorbed in blaming the system. These students may show open hostility, acts of defiance, or angry withdrawal. Hoping to channel their response to marginalization in another direction, some students may seek emulation and identification with the dominant culture at all costs, including trying to “pass” as a member of the dominant culture. Another role frequently sought out is that of an emissary, an interpreter, or a go-between for both cultures. The most violent outcome of all could be the situation where the marginal student comes to accept a permanently marginal status within a marginal culture. Conditioned since birth to the existence of both cultures and having had shared experiences of dealing with both cultures during the developmental years, the end result of the college experience for such an individual is the continuation and reinforcement of such prior beliefs, thus creating a marginal person who exists in a marginal culture and is totally accepting of this outcome. Humanistic sociology is one area from which collegiate educators and administrators can draw useful alternatives to counteract the violence that is so intimately woven into the fabric of institutions of academe. Humanistic sociology can help educators develop a broader view of their work and can assist them in creating a more healthy school environment, both physically and emotionally. Humanistic sociology emphasizes a nurturing and positive environment that can promote cooperation and creativity. Schools that promote values of empathy, tolerance, and compassion create an atmosphere that might reduce or eliminate systemic or structural violence. In cases where violence may persist, this approach examines how justice may be maximized for all parties. Stan C. Weeber Further Reading Aronson, E. (2000). Nobody left to hate: Teaching compassion after Columbine. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Systemic/Structural Violence, High School

Breese, J., & Grant, K. (2004). Policy implications from a study of marginality: Theory and African American students. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 32(2), 169–178. Finley, L. (2006). Examining school searches as systemic violence. Critical Criminology, 14, 117–135. Finley, L., & Hartmann, D. (2004), Institutional change and resistance: Teacher preparatory faculty and technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(3), 319–337. Watkinson, A. (1997). Administrative complicity and systemic violence in education. In J. Epp & A. Watkinson (Eds.), Systemic violence in education: Broken promises (pp. 3–24). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Systemic/Structural Violence, High School Few educational settings are exempt from school violence. Violent incidents occur at the primary level and continue all the way through the post-secondary levels of education. School violence has become a fairly popular topic over the last few decades, and a great deal of public opinion concerning school violence is affected by increased media attention regarding incidents that occur on school grounds. Contrary to popular belief, school violence has been on the decline for at least the past decade. Middle school and high school students are far more likely than elementary school students to perceive danger in multiple school subcontexts. However, students at the high school level are among those most at risk, with public high schools reporting incidents of violence at higher rates than either public middle schools or primary schools. The causes of high school violence are of critical concern. Which variables increase the likelihood that school violence will occur? Exploring this phenomenon from the individual level is a common approach taken by researchers. However, structural causes of violence are of equal importance. Sociologist James Henslin characterizes social structure as “the framework of society that was already laid out before you were born.” Thus researchers must explore the contributions that social and economic forces make to delinquent behavior among high school students to gain insight into the underlying causes of structural violence among this group. Structural causes for school violence are multifaceted. Dewey Cornell, Professor of Education at the University of Virginia likens exploring this phenomenon to that of airline industry accidents. In the airline industry, it is generally understood that plane crashes rarely have just one cause. Instead, they typically result from an accumulation of factors, such as poor weather, human error, and electrical failure. These factors come together as a whole, with the end result being a crash. The same tends to be true with school violence: Poverty, discrimination, and lack of social support

475

476

Systemic/Structural Violence, High School

Standardized testing and standardized curricula can be seen as forms of systemic violence because they assume that all students are able to perform at the same level as everyone else in the class at the same time. (iStockPhoto)

appear to represent the accumulation of factors most responsible for structural violence in U.S. high schools. Economic inequality has long been positioned the forefront in discussions of structural violence. The United States is home to many of the world’s most affluent people. Statistics, however, reveal significant disparities between the rich and the poor, and those affected most by such income and wealth disparities in the United States are children. Long-lasting scarcity among a great deal of U.S. residents has led many to believe that U.S. social class systems now include a permanent underclass. Furthermore, American children face bouts of poverty at rates unprecedented in other industrialized nations. Economic deprivation places an individual at an increased risk for violence. Research reveals that adolescents’ attempts to prevail over their poverty-stricken conditions often result in a variety of challenges. They often have strong aspirations to achieve the “American Dream.” Yet, given their limited circumstances, they often find themselves partaking in delinquent behaviors to accomplish these goals. These delinquent behaviors include illegal drug trafficking and gang activity, as well as problematic behaviors on school grounds.

Systemic/Structural Violence, High School

People of color disproportionately occupy the lower-class sector of U.S. society. In fact, blacks and Hispanics significantly outnumber their white counterparts in this realm. As a result, discussions of poverty, to some degree, must be racialized. Thus, in addition to suffering from class discrimination, members of minority groups must cope with racial discrimination. Many people overlook the fact that youth must endure these oppressive conditions. Minority adolescents have spoken directly about the complexity of mentally coping with these conditions. Some have conveyed feelings of hopelessness and powerlessness, while others have reported expressing hostility through physical altercations as a means of protesting society’s unjust ways. The implications of this phenomenon often leave the individual feeling socially excluded. Lack of social support is an additional factor when examining causes of structural violence in high schools. Societal, community, and familial support are all critical aspects of social control. For instance, children exposed to violence in their homes or neighborhoods are more likely to behave violently in school. For most children, home is a safe haven. However, this scenario is becoming less and less common, particularly for those who reside in low-income neighborhoods. Children have reported witnessing shootings and violent gang activity. Contemporary children often witness first-hand the impact of violence and drugs in their neighborhoods and even in their homes, which can have devastating effects. These issues are perpetuated by single-parent households and further worsened if the custodial parent participates in self-destructive behavior. Community violence resulting from such problems as drug use and gang activity tends to disproportionately afflict lower-class neighborhoods, and children’s perpetual exposure to violence plays a significant role in their likelihood of partaking in violent behavior. For example, studies have revealed that children who are exposed to chronic community violence suffer much higher rates of posttraumatic stress disorder. Consequently, their likelihood of developing cognitive and behavioral problems also increases. The literature suggests that the more violence children are exposed to (whether in the home or in the community), the more likely they are to feel a loss of control. Researchers have also concluded that students are often overwhelmed by these obstacles. Thus their concerns regarding community violence often take precedence over anything happening in school, good or bad, including their behavior. Feelings of hopelessness, frustration, and loss of control make acting out an appealing choice for struggling adolescents. Clearly, what happens at school is only one segment of a student’s life. Students of all ages may struggle with issues of drugs, abuse, and even neglect within the home, and exposure to violence increases a youth’s risk of partaking in deviant behavior in the school system. The duration of exposure to structural violence sets adolescents apart from their pre-teen counterparts and could play a role in the higher incident rate

477

478

Systemic/Structural Violence, High School

of violence at the high school level. Adolescents have likely endured poverty-stricken lifestyles, racial and class discrimination, and associated societal consequences to a longer degree than younger children, and many adolescents have likely tailored their coping mechanisms to fit their circumstances. However, even the most dedicated students can find themselves developing harmful coping skills. It is apparent that environmental circumstances play a significant role in student performance, and a variety of social factors, from social exclusion to inequality, appear to be critical components in discussions of structural violence in U.S. high schools. Kamesha Spates Further Reading Astor, R., Meyer, H., & Pitner, O. (2001). Elementary and middle school students’ perceptions of violence-prone school subcontexts. Elementary School Journal, 101, 511–528. Brady, E. (1995). How to survive urban violence with hope. English Journal, 84, 43–50. Cullen, F. (1994). Social support as an organizing concept for criminology: Presidential address to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. Justice Quarterly, 11, 527–59. Harris, I. (1996). Peace education in an urban school district in the United States. Peabody Journal of Education, 71, 63–83. Henry, S. (2000). What Is school violence? An integrated definition. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 567, 16–29. Henslin, J. (2001). Essentials of sociology: A down-to-earth approach. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Kramer, R. (2000). Poverty, inequality, and youth violence. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 567, 123–139. Messner, S., & Rosenfeld, R. (1997). Crime and the American Dream (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Randolph, S., Koblinsky, S., & Roberts, D. (1996). Studying the role of family and school in the development of African American preschoolers in violent neighborhoods. Journal of Negro Education, 65, 282–294. Serious violent crime rate in U.S. schools. (2010). Charlottesville, VA: Youth Violence Project, School of Education, University of Virginia. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence -in-schools/national-statistics.html Statistics: School violence. (2005). New Haven, CT: National Center for Children Exposed to Violence. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from http://www.nccev.org/ violence/statistics/statistics-school.html Towns, D. (1996). “Rewind the world!”: An ethnographic study of inner-city African American children’s perceptions of violence. Journal of Negro Education, 65, 375–389.

T Teacher-Perpetrated Crime and Violence, High School Although most public attention regarding school violence focuses on situations in which students are the offenders, high school teachers and other school personnel are sometimes perpetrators. It is difficult to find solid data on how often educators are the offenders, as no one collects such data in a systemic way. Teacher- or staffperpetrated violence may take many forms. Teachers may bully their students by being verbally or physically abusive. They may also commit sexual harassment or sexual assault. Corporal punishment is an example of systemic violence, when the violence perpetrated by educational personnel is the result of policies or practices that are supposed to be “for students’ own good.” According to McEvoy (2005), bullying by teachers (or other staff, including coaches, who have supervisory control over students) is defined as “a pattern of conduct, rooted in a power differential, that threatens, harms, humiliates, induces fear, or causes students substantial emotional distress.” One anonymous survey of teachers at seven elementary schools found 45% admitted to having bullied a student. Teacher-on-student bullying is in many ways similar to student-tostudent bullying. Like all forms of bullying, it is rooted in the bully’s desire to obtain and maintain power over the victim. Bullying is done deliberately and is intended to distress the victim. It tends to be repeated and, often, bullies face no repercussions for their behavior. The latter point is even more true when the bully is a teacher or school official. Victims are selected for numerous reasons—because they appear vulnerable, because it is unlikely that other students will support or defend them, or because they have some particular attribute the educator does not value. Teacher bullies often claim their behavior is justified and will even suggest they have been provoked. Others claim their behavior is simply a motivational tactic or a necessary form of discipline. Because they are in positions of power, teacher or other

479

480

Teacher-Perpetrated Crime and Violence, High School

educational personnel are more easily able to deflect complaints about their behavior. They may try to convince victims they are paranoid or crazy. They may assert that victims are simply unhappy with them and, therefore, are making unfair or unwarranted allegations. Victims of teachers-perpetrated bullying often feel as if there is nowhere to go for help, as it is the very people who are entrusted to help them who are responsible for the abuse. This situation can leave victims depressed and anxious. Many miss school time to avoid the abuse, and then suffer additional repercussions. Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct that is sexual in nature. In a school setting, it refers to conduct that denies or limits a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from school programs. It might include inappropriate comments or touching, sexual propositions, displaying or distributing explicit materials, telling sexually inappropriate jokes, and spreading sexual-related rumors. Two types of sexual harassment are distinguished: quid pro quo and hostile environment. Quid pro quo refers to unwelcome propositions or suggestions. Hostile environment occurs when a third party (in this case, a school employee or other student) creates a climate that is inappropriate—for instance, by displaying explicit photographs. Sexual harassment is prohibited by Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Under this legislation, schools are required to have specific policies regarding sex discrimination and sexual harassment and to distribute those policies to students and staff. In 2000, a nation-wide study conducted by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) Educational Foundation found that approximately 290,000 students experienced physical forms of sexual harassment by a public school employee between 1991 and 2000. Another study two years later by the AAUW found that, of students who reported sexual harassment in schools, 38% had been harassed by teachers or school personnel. A 2008 study found that, while more students are bullied in schools, sexual harassment may be more damaging to both girls and boys. Psychological abuse or maltreatment takes many forms, ranging from ridicule and verbal assaults to use of inappropriate authoritarian discipline measures to failure to intervene when students are being bullied or harassed by peers. Teachers may humiliate students by calling them names, by repeatedly calling on students who are struggling, and by publicly pointing out poor performances. A very common form of psychologically damaging punishment is the denial of restroom privileges. Educators often defend such abusive behavior, arguing that they were either kidding around or that they were responding to inappropriate student behavior. One of the most vulnerable groups within schools is lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth. The 2005 version of the National School Climate study included 1,732 students ages 13 to 20. It found that

Teacher-Perpetrated Crime and Violence, High School

75.4% hear the words “faggot” or “dyke” frequently, and 89.2% hear comments like “You’re gay,” or “That’s so gay” frequently. These comments are typically made when faculty and staff are not present, but when they are around, only 16.5% of the sample said such adults intervened frequently. Students said staff are less likely to intervene when they hear this type of remark than when they hear racist or sexist comments. Notably, 18.6% of the sample said staff also made this type of remark. Systemic violence refers to institutional practices or procedures that adversely affect individuals or groups psychologically, mentally, culturally, spiritually, economically, or physically. It refers to acts of violence that are embedded or institutionalized into the daily life of schools. Rather than being intentionally damaging, systemic violence is usually the result of practices or policies that are supposed to help maintain a safe educational climate but instead do harm to students. Corporal punishment is an example of systemic violence. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), more than 250,000 public school students endure corporal punishment each year. Corporal punishment takes many forms, but in general refers to the imposition of some physical action that is intended to punish students for misbehavior. Paddling is the most common form of corporal punishment used in schools. A 2009 report by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch found students being hit by belts and rulers, as well as a variety of personal attacks including being thrown to the floor, dragged on hard tile, slapped, or slammed into walls. Students with disabilities are most likely to receive corporal punishment—in particular, students with autism. Most major medical bodies, including the Society for Adolescent Medicine and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have condemned this practice, as it can result in serious medical consequences, including muscle injury, blood clotting, and hemorrhaging. Corporal punishment is banned in most of the world. Today, 106 nations across the globe outlaw corporal punishment in schools, including the United Kingdom, which did so following a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. In the United States however, 21 states allow corporal punishment in schools, although the practice is prohibited in most juvenile detention centers and foster care settings. Corporal punishment in the United States disproportionately affects African American students and, in some areas, Native American students. In the 2006– 2007 school year, African American students accounted for 17.1% of the total U.S. student population, but 35.6% of those students who were paddled. In the same year, in the 13 states with the highest rates of paddling, 1.4 times as many African American students were paddled as might be expected given their percentage of the student population. Although girls of all races were paddled less often than boys, African American girls were nonetheless physically punished at more

481

482

Technological Responses, High School

than twice the rate of their white counterparts in those 13 states during this time period. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Epp, J. (1996). Systemic violence: How schools hurt children. London: Routledge. Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN). (2005). From teasing to torment: School climate in America. Washington, DC: Author. Gruber, J., & Fineran, S. (2008). Comparing the impact of bullying and sexual harassment victimization on the mental and physical health of adolescents. Sex Roles, 10, 1–13. Hyman, I., & Snook, P. (1999). Dangerous schools. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Sexual harassment: It’s not academic. Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocrshpam.pdf Stephey, M. (2009, April 12). Corporal punishment in U.S. schools. Time. Retrieved March 31, 2010, from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/ 0,8599,1915820,00.html A violent education: Corporal punishment of children in U.S. public schools. (2008). New York: Amnesty International.

Technological Responses, High School Escalating levels of violence in schools and the widespread community fear that school shootings in particular could happen anywhere have led high school administrators to turn to technology to protect their students. Legislative attention in this area has likewise resulted in greater funding for high-tech school security systems. However, technological responses can have unintended consequences that affect perceived safety levels in schools. While metal detectors and video cameras have been present in schools since the 1980s, new digital technologies are providing additional opportunities for both violence and surveillance. A metal detector is an electronic implement used to detect the electromagnetic field of metallic objects. These devices have been used in schools as part of an attempt to combat violence by detecting the presence of weapons such as guns and knives among the student population. Introduced in response to inner-city drug problems and the surrounding drug trade, metal detectors have been credited with reducing the number of knives brought into these schools. Two types of metal detectors are used in schools: hand-held devices and machines fixed to the floor through which students walk. A 2000 study of both

Technological Responses, High School

middle and high schools found that random metal detectors were used in 4% of public schools, while only 1% required students to pass through fixed metal detectors each day. To prevent accusations of favoritism or discrimination, some schools also use automatic mats that blink red or green lights to select patterns of students for random scanning (e.g., every third or fourth student). Metal detectors are not a favored method of violence control and are usually introduced only in those schools that report a high incidence of weapons-related violence. Their popularity (or recognized potential for success) has risen and declined at significant moments in the last 20 years. For example, at the end of the 1990s—a decade characterized by school shootings—a CBS News poll showed that 71% of respondents believed metal detectors should be present in schools as basic security. Conversely, in the last few years, several high school administrators have gone on record discouraging their use. The effectiveness of metal detectors is highly contested, with a number of empirical studies producing conflicting findings. While Green (1999) of the Department of Justice argues that use of these devices makes schools safer, Schreck, Miller, and Gibson (2003) of the Department of Criminal Justice describe them as ineffective. Mayer and Leone (1999) from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in conjunction with the National Center for Education Statistics and the Census Bureau, make the case that metal detectors actually increase social disorder in schools. Likewise, Douglas Thompkins (2000), a former member of a Chicago street gang and now a researcher in criminology and criminal justice, suggests that metal detectors simultaneously decrease violence in schools and create an unhealthy culture of fear. An International Communications Research study also found conflicting views among the general population, with 50% of Americans seeing metal detectors as helpful in preventing school violence and 47% believing they would not help. In a study of school superintendents in Georgia focusing on their strategies for school security, 97% of respondents reported the use of security cameras in their schools. The cameras are placed in specific locations such as hallways, the cafeteria, parking lots, administrative offices, athletic stadiums, and school buses to allow staff to monitor student behaviors in these areas. Digital video technologies have increased the sophistication of this method of surveillance as videos can be monitored live via any internet connection remotely, allowing 24 hours a day, seven days a week surveillance. The power of video camera surveillance derives from the possibility that someone could be watching. Some students have even confessed to violations of school rules and policies that were not caught on camera. While anecdotal evidence suggests video cameras in schools have decreased the level of vandalism in particular, their effect on violence is unknown. Research shows that in schools without a history of violence, video surveillance can have a detrimental effect on both students’ and teachers’ perceptions of their personal safety. In schools where gang activity is

483

484

Technological Responses, High School

recorded, gangs are able to capitalize on the culture of fear surrounding surveillance to increase their power and dominance. Since the high-profile school shootings in the late 1990s, and particularly in the wake of the shootings at Columbine High School, legislative attention has resulted in increased funding for security technology in U.S. schools. Along with metal detectors and video camera surveillance, technological responses to school violence include motion detectors, intruder alarm monitoring systems, two-way radios and walkie-talkies, lapel microphones, locked doors linked to the fire alarm system to restrict entry to and exit from buildings, and ID card machines (which register attendance, lateness, and discipline records). Pocket grenades for use by teachers are in the planning stage in New York schools. Lie detector (polygraph) tests have also been used to determine whether students were complying with drug and alcohol policies. Polygraphs are rarely used with juveniles, however, and in any case their results may not be admissible when considering disciplinary action. John Devine (1995) of the Metropolitan Center for Urban Education at New York University’s School of Education argues that school security is a burgeoning industry that aims to introduce these kinds of measures in every school in America. While the rate of physical violence in schools may have decreased, the incidence of emotional violence in these settings is rising. As students have become more accustomed to and dependent on the use of social networking, instant messaging, and text messaging, the potential for high school students to receive threatening or abusive messages has increased exponentially. Cyberbullying is a very real problem that administrators have struggled to deal with. Many schools have installed firewalls to prevent access to social networking sites from school computers so as to discourage the incidence of bullying online. While this measure addresses the problem during school hours, off-campus cyberbullying continues to run amok. In 2006, a school girl in Missouri committed suicide after fighting with someone whom she thought was a boy online; the girl had actually been talking with the mother of her friend. In response to this incident, several states have passed anti-cyberbullying legislation. Incidents in a number of countries show that this is an international issue. For example, responses in Australia at both the school and government levels have led to concerns that focusing on specific technologies or sites detracts from the significant abuse suffered by the victims of cyberbullying. For example, YouTube was banned in all schools in the state of Victoria after a video in which a group of 12 boys forced a disabled girl to perform sexual acts and then burned her hair and urinated on her was posted on the popular video-sharing site. In 2008, a high school student in Western Australia was not allowed to sit for his final-year exams because of a speech he gave at a school assembly in which he criticized his principal’s and teachers’ responses to an accident that killed five students in his class. A video of the speech was posted on YouTube, though nothing happened to the student who put the film on YouTube.

Technological Responses, High School

The faith placed in technological solutions such as firewalls may not be warranted, as a 16–year-old Australian student demonstrated by cracking that country’s Internet porn filter in less than 40 minutes. A number of private girls’ schools have responded to the problem of cyberbullying outside of school hours by implementing programs that involve consultation between the school administrators, the parents, and the girls. Likewise, NetSafe, a nonprofit organization based in New Zealand (www.netsafe.org.nz), encourages the creation of supportive networks between children, parents, schools, community organizations, and businesses. Its website focuses on education, research, and collective collaboration and allows the anonymous reporting of cyber-offenses, which are then investigated. The site also has links directing youths to telephone help lines and counseling services. Katie Ellis Further Reading Anderson, D. (1998). Curriculum, culture and community: The challenge of school violence. Crime and Justice, 24(Youth Violence), 317–363. Ballard, C., & Brady, L. (2007). Violence prevention in Georgia’s rural public school system. Journal of School Violence, 6(4), 105–129. Devine, J. (1995). Can metal detectors replace the panopticon? Cultural Anthropology, 10(2), 171–195. Glazer, G. (2007). School violence. National Journal, 39(16), 94. Green, M. W. (1999). The appropriate and effective use of security technology in US schools: A guide for schools and law enforcement agencies. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Jimerson, S. R., & Furlong, M. J. (2006). The handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to practice. New York: Routledge. Mayer, M. J., & Leone, P. E. (1999). A structural analysis of school violence and disruption: Implications for creating safer schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 22, 333–356. Schrek, C. J., Miller, J. M., & Gibson, C. L. (2003). Trouble in the school yard: A study of the risk factors of victimisation at school. Crime and Delinquency, 49, 460–484. Shariff, S. (2008). Cyber-bullying: Issues and solutions for the school, the classroom and the home. New York: Routledge. Theriot, M. (2009). School resource officers and the criminalization of student behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice. 37(3), 280–287. Thompkins, D. E. (2000). School violence: Gangs and a culture of fear. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 567, 54–71. Trump, K. S. (2000). Classroom killers? Hallway hostages?: How schools can prevent and manage school crises. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

485

486

Technology and Campus Crime and Violence

Technology and Campus Crime and Violence Colleges and research institutions are usually believed to be the birthplace of new technologies. Numerous inventions and discoveries are coming out of laboratories all around the world every year. To enhance the study and research environment, colleges are dedicated to providing students with access to these new technologies. On the one hand, the technologies offer students a great deal of convenience in terms of completing their academic and research requirements. On the other hand, some of them expose students to violence and are used to perpetrate violence. Additionally, various technologies are useful in responding to violent incidents when they occur and, in some cases, preventing such events from occurring. Most colleges in United States offer Internet access to students in both classrooms and dormitories. Students can easily log into the campus network with their own Net ID and password, which are given to them when they enter college. Given the convenience of Internet and computer access, students tend to spend a large proportion of their time on the Internet. One of the main attractions online is video games. Many of these games are violent in nature, and incorporate sexist and stereotypical images into their characters. Because college students generally reach the adult age during their matriculation, they are no longer restricted by the ratings assigned to violent games and can access any content they like. As consoles become more powerful and graphics become more realistic, the virtual world gets closer to the reality. Some players who are attracted to this world become obsessed with it. Rather than having players be the passive recipients of human violence, violent video games involve players in performing violence in the virtual world; in this way, they may promote a higher level of aggression among players. In addition to violent video games, hundreds of websites can be found that display images and videos of stomach-turning violence. Screaming, cursing, beatings, stabbings, shootings, and smack-downs can be found easily online. Because college students can easily avoid the college-imposed filters intended to prevent them from accessing such sites, they have no trouble viewing the images of dead, dying, and mangled human beings. Network-related security poses an ongoing challenge in the university setting. College students are not always careful about what they post on social networking sites such as Facebook, and may behind all kinds of clues that could identify specific people, including their names, their phone numbers, their birthdays, and even their precise locations. Other publicly listed information is easy to obtain online, making identity theft a growing problem on college campuses. Meanwhile, advanced technology has also strengthened college students’ ability to defend themselves and fight against violence on their campuses. A review of 20 reports and recommendations for colleges and universities recommended a number

Technology and Campus Crime and Violence

of safety measures, including the development of an emergency notification system. Colleges in the United States generally set up campus email service systems, in which each student is provided with an email account. College administrators can then send out information to each student via email, such as when there is a threat on campus. Campus police can also send out crime notices to inform students about particular types of dangers as well as ways to avoid becoming a victim. As more students have obtained cell phones that can receive both calls and text messages, colleges and universities have included phone or text messaging as part of their notification systems. Companies such as Omnilert provide this type of service to colleges and universities. Many colleges and universities added more sophisticated notification systems after the Virginia Tech shooting on April 16, 2007. Virginia Tech has been criticized because university officials waited two hours after the shootings began to send the first email notification to students; this statement merely warned students to be cautious and did not instruct them to stay away from the classrooms—even though shooter Seung-Hui Cho had not yet been apprehended at that point. Other notification systems work through intercoms, with messages being be broadcast to specific areas or even to an entire campus. Technology can also help solve crimes on campus. Some of the same companies that offer notification services have developed electronic tip lines, where students can anonymously submit information about incidents on campus. The popularity of video recording and digital cameras has helped campus officials to capture the details of many crime scenes. Jamal Albarghouti, a Virginia Tech student who witnessed the shooting in 2007, used his cell phone to record the dramatic shooting. Such videos can be used as evidence in court, as can videotapes made from campus-based surveillance cameras. After the rash of school shootings in the 1990s, many schools installed metal detectors. Most colleges and universities did not, realizing that it would be impossible to use them effectively on their sprawling campus grounds and that they would contrast with the philosophical openness and freedom of campus communities. Additionally, most of the task forces and study groups that have made recommendations for campus security have not suggested greater use of metal detectors. In lieu of metal detectors, most colleges use some type of secure key, often called a prox card, that allows authorized persons to gain access to residence halls. These keys can also be used to track who has entered and left the building. Although the use of this technology has begun to spread to other buildings, most academic halls remain easily accessible, especially during daytime hours. Even so, some oppose using these technologies, as they believe campuses will be viewed as fortresses, not arenas for free movement and thought. Additionally, the most advanced technologies are very expensive and, therefore, are cost-prohibitive for many campuses. Whatever measures are considered, campus officials are urged to be cautious, and to ensure that their reaction to

487

488

Teen Courts

criminal incidents or the fear of them does not unduly impinge on students’ rights. Hui Huang Further Reading Anderson, C. (2004). An update on the effects of playing violent video games. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 113–122. Fox, J., & Savage, J. (2009). Mass murder goes to college: An examination of changes on college campuses after Virginia Tech. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 1465–1485. Rawe, J. (2007, April 16). Can we make campuses safer? Time. Retrieved November 17, 2010, from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/ 0,8599,1611164,00.html Schaffhauser, D. (2010, October 28). E2campus bundles campus emergency safety services. Campus Technology. Retrieved November 17, 2010, from http:// campustechnology.com/articles/2010/10/28/e2campus-bundles-campus -emergency-safety-services.aspx

Teen Courts Teen courts, also known as youth courts, student courts, and peer courts, are structured alternative forums where youth can adjudicate peer crimes. Teen courts date back to the 1960s, but did not come to national attention until the 1990s. The programs in the 1990s grew out of efforts promulgated by the American Bar Association to hold youth accountable for their actions before they develop a pattern of law-breaking behavior. According to the National Youth Court Database, in 2006, there were more than 1,127 youth court programs in the United States. Unlike traditional juvenile justice systems, teen courts do not fall within the judicial branch of government. Instead, they are intervention and diversion programs meant to prevent future crimes through peer pressure and relevant, but restorative punishments. Youth offenders between the ages of 10 and 17 can qualify for adjudication in teen courts. The main purpose of most teen court programs is to determine a fair and restorative sentence, taking into account the needs of both the youth defendants and their victims. Most teen courts are administered or sponsored by juvenile courts, probation officers, law enforcement, nonprofit organizations, or schools. All teen courts operate within the parameters of individual state laws, which vary significantly from state to state. Some states have enacted legislation and standards for design, operation, and funding of such courts. Other states include broad legislation that grants county officials, school districts, and local nonprofit groups the discretion to enact teen courts.

Teen Courts

In most states, the teen court’s authority is informal. First-time youthful offenders agree to judgment by the teen court as part of a diversion program negotiated with the traditional juvenile justice system. Juveniles and their families agree to comply with the teen court program stipulations in exchange for dismissal of delinquency charges. The penalty for noncompliance with the teen court process is that the offending youth must return to the traditional juvenile justice system and face adjudication by a juvenile court judge. Teen courts operate like regular juvenile courts, except that there are fewer adults involved, and teenagers take the roles of court clerks, bailiffs, attorneys, jurors, and even judges. They accept a range of offenses for adjudication, but typically reject more serious violent crimes. Most youth courts accept crimes related to theft; vandalism; cigarette, alcohol, and drug possession and use; curfew violation; and truancy. Few courts accept crimes related to fraud, harassment, and criminal mischief. Most sentencing options include a combination of community service, oral and/or written apologies, essays, jury duty, monetary restitution, and attendance at educational workshops. Substance abuse offenders’ sentences include drug and alcohol testing. Traffic violations result in suspended driver’s licenses. Sentences for victim-related crimes include restitution, victim awareness classes, victim/offender mediation, and jail tours. Some former youth defendants are sentenced to work within the teen court process adjudicating other peer offenders. Teen courtroom models vary from state to state and from program to program. Four general types exist: adult judge, youth judge, youth tribunal, and peer jury. In the adult judge model, young people perform all of the court roles, except for that of the judge. In the youth judge model, young people, with adult supervision and management, perform all roles. Youth tribunals consist of three youth judges who hear the cases presented by the youth attorneys. Peer jury models operate like a grand jury in that the jury of teens can ask the defendant questions directly. All four teen courtroom models require unpaid participation on behalf of the participating youth. Youth who work in teen courts are either volunteers or previous defendants working in the court as a condition of their sentence. Mary Christianakis Further Reading Butts, J., & Buck, J. (2000, October). Teen courts: A focus on research. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Retrieved May 11, 2010, from http://www.ncjrs.gov/ pdffiles1/ojjdp/183472.pdf Butts, J., Buck, J., & Coggeshall, M. (2002, April). The impact of teen courts on young offenders. Urban Institute. Retrieved May 11, 2010, from http:// www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410457.pdf

489

490

Tinker v. Des Moines School District

Herman, M. (2002). Juvenile justice trends in 2002: Teen courts—A juvenile justice diversion program. National Center for State Courts. Retrieved May 11, 2010, from http://www.ncsconline.org/wc/publications/kis_juvjus _ trends02_teenpub.pdf National Association of Youth Courts: http://www.youthcourt.net/ Williamson, D., & Wells, J. (2004). Making youth court as effective as possible. Chicago: American Bar Association.

Tinker v. Des Moines School District A pivotal court case, Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), helped establish the First Amendment rights of public school students. In December 1965, 15-year-old John Tinker; his sister, 13-year-old Mary Beth Tinker; and a friend, 16-year-old Christopher Eckhardt, wore black armbands with

Mary Beth and John Tinker display the black armbands embellished with a peace sign that they wore to school to protest the Vietnam War in Des Moines, Iowa, on March 4, 1968. Both students, along with their friend Christopher Eckhardt, were suspended from school for wearing the armbands. (Bettmann/Corbis)

Tinker v. Des Moines School District

peace symbols on them to school. Their attire was part of a protest against the Vietnam War and a symbol of support for the Christmas truce in that war that had been proposed by Senator Robert F. Kennedy. School officials had heard of the students’ plan in advance; in preparation for the event, days before they were planning to wear the armbands, the officials established a policy banning the wearing of armbands to school. The three wore the bands anyway, and all were suspended, per the new policy. The Tinker and Eckhardt families, with the support of the Iowa Civil Liberties Union, filed suit in U.S. District Court, which upheld the school’s decision. The families next appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which resulted in a tie vote that allowed the school’s decision to stand. The families then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court directly, and the Court agreed to hear the case. Oral arguments were held on November 12, 1968. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment applies to public school students. While these rights can be limited, the court held that the school district would need a constitutionally valid reason to do so, and this was not it. Writing for the majority, Justice Abe Fortas noted that a valid reason to limit students’ free expression must be more than the avoidance of discomfort that comes with the expression of unpopular opinions. He supported allowing schools to forbid conduct that could “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.” Fortas was concerned that schools would become totalitarian in their discipline, and uttered the now-famous phrase that school children do not “shed their constitutional rights to free expression at the schoolhouse gate.” One of the dissenters to this decision, Justice John Marshall Harlan II, wrote that symbolic speech was not constitutionally protected. Justice Hugo Black, the other dissenter, disagreed with the majority and claimed that the Tinkers’ and Eckhardt’s behavior was indeed disruptive. Black maintained that allowing students this type of free expression would be a slippery slope that would prompt a “revolutionary era of permissiveness” in schools. Subsequent decisions have generally limited students’ free expression. For instance, in Bethel School District v. Fraser in 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that a high school student’s speech before a school assembly was not constitutionally protected. In this case, the student’s speech had included crude sexual double entendres. In part, the Court sided with the school because the assembly took place during the school day. In Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the Court ruled that schools can censor student newspapers when those publications are school sponsored, as in the case of a journalism class that produces the paper. Laura L. Finley

491

492

Treacy, Wayne

Further Reading Dautrich, K., & Yalof, D. (2008). The future of the First Amendment: The digital media, civic education, and free expression rights in America’s high schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Dupre, A. (2010). Speaking up: The unintended cost of free speech in public schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rohr, M. (2000). How free is the speech of public school students? Florida Bar Journal, 74(6), 79. Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). Retrieved from http:// caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=393&invol=503

Treacy, Wayne On March 17, 2010, 15-year-old Wayne Treacy brutally attacked classmate Josie Ratley, also age 15, after a text message exchange in Deerfield Beach, Florida. Both were middle school students. In the text message, Ratley made a comment about Treacy’s brother, who had committed suicide in October 2009. Treacy assaulted Ratley at a school bus stop, punching her in the head and, when she fell down, slamming her head into the pavement. He also kicked Ratley with his steeltoed boots. Only the arrival of a teacher, Walter Welsh, to pull him off made Treacy stop. Ratley was in a medically induced coma at Broward General Medical Center for weeks. She has since regained consciousness but has suffered brain damage and still cannot speak. She had endured three surgeries, including one in which surgeons replaced a section of her skull they had removed to relieve pressure when her brain swelled after the attack. Treacy’s parents have said that their son “snapped,” and definitely needed mental health counseling. Treacy has been waived to adult court, where he will be tried on attempted murder charges; he faces the prospect of life in prison. Treacy has pleaded not guilty to the charges. Kayla Manson, age 13, has been charged as an accomplice in the crime, albeit in juvenile court. Manson allegedly told Treacy where to find Ratley. School officials were quick to denounce the attack. Broward County Schools Superintendent Jim Notter introduced a new district anti-bullying theme that is intended to empower students so that they can make a difference. He urged students and parents to report anything suspicious via the tip line, an email, or a text message and emphasized that all reports are anonymous so students should not fear reprisal. Unfortunately, this incident was not the first high-profile attack involving Deerfield Beach Middle School. On October 12, 2009, a group of boys attacked 15-year-old Michael Brewer, dousing him with rubbing alcohol and then setting

Treacy, Wayne

him on fire. Brewer suffered second- and third-degree burns but had recovered enough to enroll in a different school by May 2010. He spoke out publicly to encourage Ratley in her recovery. Brewer also spoke about the dangerous climate at Deerfield Beach Middle School, although administrators claim they have many protections in place. The community has rallied to support Ratley, and before her, Brewer. Numerous groups organized fundraisers to assist the youths in their recovery. Ratley’s mother, in particular, has become a vocal advocate of anti-bullying measures. Laura L. Finley Further Reading McLaughlin, J., & Cilli, L. (2010, April 20). Teen pleads not guilty in Josie Ratley beating. CBS. Retrieved May 11, 2010, from http://cbs4.com/local/josie.lou .ratley.2.1644414.html Miller, C. (2010, March 23). Hero teacher Walter Welsh: “Sorry I didn’t get there faster . . . ” but he rescued Josie Ratley from steel-toed booting. CBS News. Retrieved May 11, 2010, from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162 -20000992-504083.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody Miller, C. (2010, April 8). Josie Lou Ratley, Michael Brewer attacks spur Broward County anti-bullying campaign. CBS. Retrieved May 11, 2010, from http:// www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20002032-504083.html Olmeda, R. (2010, April 17). Wayne Treacy, 15, charged as adult in Deerfield beating of Josie Lou Ratley. Miami Herald. Retrieved May 11, 2010, from http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/17/1584121/wayne-treacy-15-charged -as-adult.html

493

This page intentionally left blank

U United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) is the United Nations’ only entity specifically charged with guaranteeing the rights of children and enforcing the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Created in 1946, it received its mandate from the United Nations General Assembly in 1953. It is a nonpartisan group. In 1965, UNICEF won the Nobel Peace Prize “for the promotion of brotherhood among nations.” UNICEF was created to care for and nurture the world’s children by helping overcome poverty, violence, disease, and discrimination. Specifically, UNICEF advocates for prenatal and postnatal care so that children can get the best start in life. It also supports education for all, but particularly for girls because research shows that educating girls has a significant impact on the community. This agency helps provide immunizations and nourishment so that children are healthy, and it works to eradicate HIV and AIDS and their devastating impact. Finally, UNICEF provides emergency relief in cases of natural and other disasters and helps ensure children are not exposed to violence or abuse in the home. The organization’s website (www.unicef.org) features a wealth of information about child survival and development, child protection, education, HIV/AIDS, nutrition, water and sanitation, health, and much more. It is searchable by topic and by country. Also on the website is information about Goodwill Ambassadors, many of whom are celebrities. Actor Danny Kaye was one of the first, and actress Mia Farrow is currently a Goodwill Ambassador. UNICEF partners with numerous other nongovernmental organizations as well as corporations, including American Airlines, Hewlett-Packard, and IKEA. The 2011 State of the World’s Children report is also available on the UNICEF website. It contains statistics, pictures, and analysis of all the major indicators

495

496

U.S. Department of Education

UNICEF measures. Researchers and others can even use the statistics to make custom tables that include specific measures and/or countries. UNICEF also has a television and a radio station that are accessible via the organization’s website. From the site, people can purchase items that support the organization’s programs, including holiday cards and handcrafted goods. Laura L. Finley Further Reading UNICEF: www.unicef.org

U.S. Department of Education The Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS), which is a division of the U.S. Department of Education, is charged with administering, coordinating, and recommending policy related to the prevention of drugs and violence in schools. OSDFS provides financial assistance for activities and programs designed to prevent drug use and violence and to foster the health and well-being of students in all grades and through college. It operates under the direction of the Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Department of Education and the advisement of the Safe and DrugFree Schools and Communities Advisory Committee, which was created by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. These entities provide direction, coordination, and leadership for five major elements of OSFS strategy: (1) health, mental health, environmental health, and physical education (HMHEHPE); (2) state-level drug and violence prevention programs; (3) national-level drug and violence prevention programs; (4) character and civic education; and (5) policy and cross-cutting programs. The HMHEHPE element, following on the heels of the Title Vof the Elementary and Secondary School Education Act, administers programs that promote the health and well-being for students and families. It provides grants for counseling, physical education, and related programs. Title IVof the Elementary and Secondary School Education Act authorized financial assistance to state and local entities implementing drug and violence prevention programs and activities in K–12 schools as well as in higher education. Nationally, drug and violence prevention programs are authorized under Title IV, Safe and Drug Free Schools and Community Act (SDFSCA) of the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994. OSDFS provides grants for model alcohol and drug prevention programs on campuses, coalitions to prevent and respond to drug and alcohol use and to prevent high-risk drinking on campuses, school-based drug testing, mentoring programs, and additional challenge grants. The Character and Civic Education (CCE) group provides programming and grants related to character and civic education. “We the People” is a civic education

U.S. Department of Justice

program that promotes civic competence among elementary and secondary students. Policy and cross-cutting programs provide discretionary grants for cooperative and collaborative prevention programs, as well as for various types of emergency assistance. In addition, OSDFS administers several provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Act that were amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. These include the Gun-Free Schools Act, provisions related to the transfer of student disciplinary records, the Pro-Children Act, and the Unsafe School Choice Option. On its website (http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osdfs/resources.html #facts), OSDFS provides a wealth of information related to drugs and violence. This material includes fact sheets on a number of topics, more-detailed publications and reports, online courses and survey assessment tools, and links to other entities related to drug, alcohol, and violence prevention. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osdfs/ index.html

U.S. Department of Justice The U.S. Department of Justice is a federal agency overseen by the U.S. Attorney General and charged with a multitude of duties and responsibilities. The mission statement of the U.S. Department of Justice states that the agency has the following goals: “To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.” The origins of the U.S. Department of Justice Department date back to the Judiciary Act of 1789, which created the position of U.S. Attorney General. Because the young nation was still in its early stages of development at that time, and had both a small population and limited government, the Attorney General role was originally a part-time position with limited responsibilities. Roughly a century later, in the aftermath of the Civil War, the U.S. Congress passed the 1870 Act to Establish the Department of Justice, which gave the Attorney General the responsibility of overseeing this agency. The newly created agency was charged with attending to the legal matters of the United States, inclusive of criminal matters and the protection of basic civil liberties.

497

498

U.S. Department of Justice

Since its founding, the U.S. Department of Justice has continued to expand and evolve and is now responsible for numerous tasks, including of law enforcement, correctional administration, research, and policy development. To provide a few examples, the U.S. Department of Justice oversees the U.S. Bureau of Prisons and houses several federal law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. The aforementioned law enforcement agencies perform numerous tasks, such as the investigation of crimes like arson, bank robbery, kidnapping, drug trafficking, and terrorist attacks; the provision of security in federal courthouses and the protection of federal judges; the provision of security for witnesses in federal criminal cases; and the apprehension of federal fugitives. As to the research and policy development responsibilities of the agency, the Office of Justice Programs within the U.S. Department of Justice oversees several research-focused agencies, such as the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. These agencies fund and conduct research on topics pertinent to juvenile delinquency and criminal activity such as homicide, property crimes, violent crimes, school crime, and drug use. In addition, they serve in advisory roles by providing information to legislators about best practices for the prevention and reduction of crime. The U.S. Department of Justice also has some offices that do not conduct original research but rather compile research on specific topics, provide advice on the development of national policies, and assist in the development of local, state, and national programs designed to reduce crime. For instance, the U.S. Department of Justice oversees the Office on Violence Against Women, whose primary task is to provide accurate information on domestic and interpersonal violence and to assist local and state governments in their efforts to reduce domestic violence. Ben Brown Further Reading Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives: www.atf.gov Bureau of Justice Statistics: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ Drug Enforcement Administration: www.usdoj.gov/dea/ Federal Bureau of Investigation: www.fbi.gov Federal Bureau of Prisons: www.bop.gov National Institute of Justice: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/ Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov Office on Violence Against Women: www.ovw.usdoj.gov U.S. Department of Justice: www.usdoj.gov U.S. Marshals Service: www.usmarshals.gov

V Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton et ux., Guardians ad Litem for Acton (No. 94-590) 515 U.S. 646, is a case that was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 28, 1995, and decided on June 26, 1995. In it, the Court ruled on the constitutionality of random drug testing of student athletes. Located in the small logging town of Vernonia, Oregon, Vernonia School District 47J was composed of one high school and three grade schools. Throughout the 1980s, school athletics played a prominent role in the town’s life, and student-athletes served as role models. However, in the mid- to late 1980s, teachers and administrators observed student-athletes boasting of drug use, which they believed promoted a drug culture. Simultaneously, disciplinary referrals doubled in number when compared to the early 1980s. Additionally, some athletes suffered injuries because of their own drug use, as well as the use of others. Initially, the district invited guest speakers, gave presentations, and created special classes to educate students on the dangers of drug use. When the problem persisted, they brought in trained dogs to sniff out drugs on campus, but to no avail. To address the drug problem among athletes, district officials proposed a student athlete drug policy to the parents, who provided input on the policy and granted unanimous approval for it. The school board approved the policy, the purpose of which was to prevent student-athletes from using drugs, protect their health and safety, and provide drug users with assistance programming. Under the policy, athletes were tested through urinalysis at the beginning of the season, and then randomly selected for testing once a week throughout the duration of the season. The students’ urine samples were sent to an independent laboratory and tested for amphetamines, cocaine, and marijuana. Only the superintendent, principals, vice principals, and athletic directors had access to test results, which

499

500

Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton

were kept for one year only. If a sample tested positive, a second test was administered to confirm the result. If the second test was negative, no further action was taken. If the second test was positive, then the athlete’s parents were informed and the athlete could choose one of two options: (1) participate in an assistance program that included weekly urinalysis or (2) be suspended from the remaining athletic season and the next one as well. Second-time offenders were automatically given option 2. Third-time offenders were suspended for the remainder of the season and the next two seasons. The policy required all student-athletes participating in interscholastic sports and their parents to sign a drug testing consent form as a condition for participation in sports. The policy had been in place for From left: attorney John Wittmayer, brother two full years when James Acton, Simon, James Acton, mother Judy, father Wayne, then a seventh grader, was prohibited and attorney Tom Christ walk from the U.S. from playing football because his Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on parents refused to sign the testing March 28, 1995. (AP/Wide World Photos) consent forms. In 1991, the Actons filed suit, claiming that the district’s policy violated Article I, §9, of the Oregon Constitution, as well as the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which argues for “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which extends the constitutional guarantee to searches and seizures by state officers including public school officials. After a bench trial, the Vernonia District Court denied the Actons’ claims and dismissed the suit. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s ruling, holding that the policy did indeed violate both the Fourth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, §9, of the Oregon Constitution. In a 6-3 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that mandatory drug testing of student-athletes does not violate the Fourth Amendment and, therefore, is constitutional. The Court argued that children in schools have less privacy than free

Victimless Offenses, College

adults. As argued earlier in the New Jersey v. T.L.O. case, warrantless searches in school contexts are permitted because schools have what the Court deemed “special needs” to maintain and enforce disciplinary procedures. Teachers, coaches, and administrators stand in loco parentis over children; thus they have the custodial and tutelary obligations to protect the children’s health and well-being. Additionally, the majority decision argued that volunteer student-athletes choose to participate in activities that are closely regulated and are informed of the regular intrusion upon the normal rights and privileges of other students, including privacy. For example, they willingly subject themselves to an even higher degree of regulation, as they must submit to a preseason physical examination, show proof of insurance, maintain a minimum grade-point average, and comply with the rules of conduct as determined by the sport. Mary Christianakis Further Reading Andresen, S. A. (2008). A call for drug-testing of high school student-athletes. Marquette Sports Law Review, 19(2), 325–335. Arnold, T. L. (1996). Constitutionality of random drug testing of student-athletes makes the cut . . . but will the athletes?” Journal of Law & Education, 25(1), 190–198. Donaldson, J. F. (2006). Life, liberty, and the pursuit of urinalysis: The constitutionality of random suspicionless drug testing in public schools. Valparaiso University Law Review, 41(1), 815–854. Penrose, M. (2003). Shedding rights, shredding rights: A critical examination of students’ privacy rights and the “special needs” doctrine after earls. Nevada Law Journal, 3(2), 411–451. Shutler, S. E. (1996). Random, suspicionless drug testing of high school athletes. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86(4), 1265–1303. Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton et ux., Guardians ad Litem for Acton (No. 94-590) 515 U.S. 646. (n.d.). Retrieved December 28, 2009, from http:// www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-590.ZO.html Yamaguchi, R., & Hinkle-DeGroot, R. (2002). The legal and educational issues behind drug testing in school. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Victimless Offenses, College A victimless offense is an act that is legally defined as criminal, but has no clearly identifiable victim. Victimless offenses can also occur when an illegal act has been

501

502

Victimless Offenses, College

engaged in consensually by all individuals involved. Such crimes are sometimes referred to as crimes of consent or consensual crimes. Criminologists and legal officials disagree as to whether such a thing as a victimless crime can exist, as individuals engaging in certain activities might harm or victimize themselves, or unintentionally victimize others. From this perspective, there is always a victim. The term “consensual crime” might be more appropriate, as it does not imply that there are no victims, but rather that any victims consented to the harm that they received or inflicted on themselves. The most common forms of so-called victimless offenses on college campuses in the United States are the use of illicit drugs and the under-age consumption and distribution of alcohol. In most instances, individuals who consume illicit drugs do so with the knowledge that they might be inflicting harm on their bodies and are placing themselves at risk for serious health issues. Likewise, many minors know that the possession and consumption of alcohol is illegal on college campuses, but their use of the substance does no apparent harm to others. However, laws are in place to curb offenses related to illicit drug use and underage drinking to protect individuals from harms that they might knowingly or unknowingly inflict on themselves. In the United States, many activities are prohibited to protect individuals from harming themselves, regardless of their consent to the activity. For instance, individuals must wear a seat belt when riding in a motor vehicle. Likewise, a helmet must be worn when riding a motorcycle. In the most extreme example, it is illegal to commit suicide or to assist someone in committing suicide. These laws are in place to protect people from victimizing themselves. Beyond protecting the individual, each of these activities can have far-reaching consequences on other individuals and society more generally. While the use of illicit drugs such as cocaine might have the most apparent harm on the individual using the substance, it can also hurt those around the substance user, such as children of the user or other family members. The health ramifications of illicit substance abuse can also lead to use of the health care system and other social services, requiring capital resources that could be used for other important means. Likewise, while the apparent target of the harm of not wearing a seat belt is the individual in the event of an accident, he or she might also directly harm other passengers in the car. Harm to the individual could also harm his or her family, and require health care services that might not have been needed otherwise. Thus there may a number of victims in so-called victimless crimes. Beyond illicit drug use and underage drinking, other common forms of consensual crime on campuses in the United States include violence, hazing, public nudity, and forms of sexual deviance. Many forms of violence cannot be considered consensual crime, such as sexual assault and intimate-partner violence. Many forms of violence on college campuses can, however, be considered

Victimless Offenses, College

consensual crime, such as a fight between two men in the parking lot outside a bar. In this example, while the men might have willingly engaged in the activity knowing the harm that it could result to self and the other combatant, both could still be criminally charged with assault. Although they may have given their consent to the action, it might not form a viable legal defense; thus a crime would have occurred. In contrast, in a college football game on campus, if a player physically maims another, causing serious, even life-threatening injury, the consent defense can be used, resulting in no criminal penalty for the player. Like violence, hazing on college campuses can be considered a crime regardless of consent. Of the 43 states that have legal statutes against hazing, most do not recognize consent as a viable legal defense. In some states, however, if an individual consents to be hazed, then no penal sanction is sought. The statutes against hazing of many states also include provisions that indicate that no crime has occurred if the hazing is done as part of a college fraternity ritual or on an athletic team. Other charges related to the hazing, such as sexual assault, can be attributed to the perpetrators of hazing regardless of state hazing laws or the consent of the victim. The act of streaking, or running nude, across college campuses or at college sporting event is a common occurrence in the United States. Regardless of consent, public nudity is typically illegal, especially if children are witness to the activity. However, there are no real victims of this crime; as such, streakers are often treated with leniency in the courts. When public nudity is forced on an individual, such as is common in hazing rituals, it is often considered to be a crime regardless of consent. Sexual deviance involving sadism and masochism, as well as statutory rape, can also be illegal. Sadism and masochism involve sexual gratification from inflicting suffering onto another person or having pain inflicted on oneself. When sadism and masochism cross certain lines, such as when they involve knife and gun play, these acts can become illegal regardless of consent. Statutory rape occurs when an individual older than the age of consent has sexual intercourse with an individual younger than the age of consent. Regardless if consent is given, it is not treated as legally valid because of the age of the alleged victim. Victimless crimes, or consensual crimes, are often characterized as being conflictual in the U.S. legal system. Laws are constructed to help protect individuals from harming themselves, but the consequences of the law often do more harm than the acts that have been criminalized. For instance, it can be argued that the criminalization of marijuana use has greater harmful effect on individuals and societies than the actual harm caused by the drug. Individuals’ lives, and the lives of their families, are disrupted by the criminalization of marijuana. Furthermore, the legal system and other law enforcement resources are being used in ways that might be better reserved for addressing more serious crimes. Victimless crimes are also considered conflictual as there is little consensus in American society as to whether they should

503

504

Victimless Offenses, High School

be criminal. Often, laws against victimless crimes encroach on the civil liberties of citizens, which is a prided aspect of American culture and society. Curtis Fogel Further Reading Dubber, M. D. (2002). Victims in the war on crime: The use and abuse of victim’s rights. New York: New York University Press. Leitzel, J. (2008). Regulating vice: Misguided prohibitions and realistic controls. New York: Cambridge University Press. Meier, R. F., & Geis, G. (1997). Victimless crime? Prostitution, drugs, homosexuality, and abortion. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Victimless Offenses, High School A victimless offense can be broadly defined as an offense where the person who is considered the “victim” consents to the act of violence. Often, the offense violates social and community standards rather than having a tangible legal implication. Suicide and self-harm, which are both dangerous and self-directed, can be considered as victimless offenses and have had a longer history of occurrence in schools than other high-profile acts of violence. Unlike suicide and self-harm, hazing is not self-directed; nevertheless, as a form of violent initiation into a group, victims often consent to the hazing-related violence committed against them. Even so, true consent is questionable in such case, given that peer pressure and a desire to belong to a group are involved. Suicide is the conscious act of ending one’s own life. Self-harm likewise refers to a person’s intention to deliberately inflict harm on himself or herself, often as a coping strategy. While suicidal behavior consists of thoughts and actions that may lead to serious injury, self-harm can be distinguished from a suicide attempt in that the person who engages in self-harm does not intend to die. It is possible for both behaviors to exist in the one person; thus an individual engaging in self-harm may accidentally cause his or her own death or attempt suicide in a moment of desperation. Described as a multidimensional malaise or depression by suicide expert Edwin Shneidman, suicide is a desperate solution where the sufferer can see no other alternative. It is the third leading cause of death among American teenagers and young adults between the ages of 16 and 24. A survey of 10,000 U.S. schoolaged adolescents showed that 24.1% had serious thoughts about suicide, 17.7% had made a plan for suicide, and 8.7% had already attempted suicide in the last 12 months. Suicide is far less common in younger age groups, with a less than 1% occurrence noted in children aged 5 to 10.

Victimless Offenses, High School

Suicide, as a consequence of a number of distress factors, is framed on an interpersonal level as the only and best solution in a needful individual. Changes to behavior indicating personal crisis can suggest a risk of suicide. The Center for Suicide Prevention has compiled a list of seven indicators of school-aged adolescents at risk of suicide: • • • • • • •

Unexpected reduction of academic performance Ideas and themes of depression, death, and suicide Change in mood and marked emotional instability Significant grief or stress Withdrawal from relationships Physical symptoms with emotional cause High-risk behaviors

Given that peers are more likely to know of a school-aged adolescent’s suicidal intention, school-based suicide prevention programs are a key component of attempts to decrease the incidence of teen suicide. Contagion—the phenomenon in which one suicide facilitates suicide in another person—and clustering—a series of suicides that take place at nearly the same time and place—are also of significant concern to schools. Strategies where the initial suicide is not glorified, yet students are encouraged to discuss their feelings about the incident, are encouraged in schools by suicide prevention organizations. While memorial services are encouraged, permanent memorials such as planting a tree, creating a plaque, or dedicating a yearbook to the individual who committed suicide are discouraged. It is difficult to obtain reliable statistics on people who engage in self-harm, because this behavior is often a private act committed by individuals who are unwilling to seek professional help. The most common form of self-harm is skin cutting, because people can choose to inflict harm parts of the body that can be covered up by clothing. Other methods include burning, self-hitting, scratching, hair pulling, and interfering with wound healing. Eating disorders can also be considered as a form of self-harm. The most extreme methods of self-harm include removal of the eye and amputation of limbs or genitals. The motivations of people who deliberately and repetitively damage their bodies with little to no suicidal intent often center on religious and sexual themes. According to Favazza and Rosenthal (1993), the behavior acts as a form of rapid relief from psychological distress and often is performed as a means to cope with tension and anxiety, depression and emptiness, feelings of numbness, anger and aggression, feelings of alienation, self-hatred or guilt, and intense emotional pain.

505

506

Victimless Offenses, High School

Self-harm is also a method used to gain control over one’s body, and to maintain a sense of security or feeling of uniqueness. It may be a continuation of previous abuse patterns or a way to obtain a feeling of euphoria. Finally, self-harm could be a symptom of a more severe mental disorder. One study found that 71% of respondents described it as an addiction. Research suggests that the practice of skin cutting is most common among high school girls, with adolescents being more likely to engage in this behavior if their friends do. While females report higher incidences of self-harm, this difference may simply reflect the fact that females are more willing to seek help. Selfharming behaviors typically begin at around age 14, peaking in the 16- to 25-year-old age group. Although the practice may continue for decades, treatment may enable adolescents to learn better coping strategies and grow out of their selfharming behaviors. Hazing is the humiliating initiation into a club or group whereby a person completes a ritualistic test that usually involves physical or emotional injury. It can be divided into three categories: subtle hazing (generally acceptable behaviors that serve to embarrass new members), harassment hazing (behaviors that cause emotional or physical discomfort), and violent hazing. Although not all hazing is violent, 22% of students have participated in dangerous hazing practices. With the exception of Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Wyoming, each U.S. state has anti-hazing legislation in effect. Despite the widespread existence of such legislation, violent hazing rituals—including extreme alcohol consumption, savage beatings or paddling, burning, bondage, and exposure to extreme weather conditions—persist in many high schools. There has been a long tradition of hazing in group initiation. Supporters claim the practice promotes team bonding, which in turn allows teams to work together more effectively; people who do not become truly committed to the endeavor through hazing are likely to have weaker bonds to the group, it is argued. While there is very little research in support of this theory, Stephen Sweet, a sociology professor at New York State University, argues that hazing is not illogical and satisfies a need to belong, thereby counteracting the sense of isolation felt by many students. Although thought to take place mainly among male college students who are members of athletic teams or fraternities, research shows that dangerous practices of hazing are as prevalent among high school students (22%) as they are among college students (21%). While males are more at risk of hazing, this practice is actually common among high school students of both genders. A recent study found that 48% of U.S. high school students had undergone a hazing ritual so as to join a group or organization, with 24% joining an athletic team; 16% a peer group or gang; 8% a music, art, or theater group; and 7% a church group. Despite the large number of students who engaged in this behavior, only 14%

Video Games

recognized the activity as hazing. Although it may be framed as a bonding experience by the perpetrators, hazing can be a dangerous activity and cultural norms often prevent victims from speaking out or refusing to participate. Katie Ellis Further Reading Allan, E. J., & Madden, M. (2008). Hazing in view: College students at risk. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from http://www.hazingstudy.org/publications/hazing _in_view_web.pdf Center for Suicide Prevention. (1998). Considerations for school suicide prevention programs, p. 32. Retrieved from http://www.suicideinfo.ca/csp/assets/ alert32.pdf Center for Suicide Prevention. (2001). A closer look at self-harm, p. 43. Retrieved from http://www.suicideinfo.ca/csp/assets/alert43.pdf Center for Suicide Prevention. (2004). School memorials after suicide: Helpful or harmful?, p. 54. Retrieved from http://www.suicideinfo.ca/csp/assets/ alert54.pdf Favazza, A. R. (1989). Why patients mutilate themselves. Hospital & Community Psychiatry, 40, 137–145. Favazza, A. R., & Rosenthal, R. J. (1993). Diagnostic issues in self-mutilation. Hospital & Community Psychiatry, 44(2), 134–140. Finkelman, P. (2006). Encyclopaedia of American civil liberties. New York: Routledge. Hoover, N. C., & Pollard, N. J. (2000). High school hazing. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from http://www.alfred.edu/hs_hazing/ Nuwer, H. (1998–2005). Stop hazing: Educating to eliminate hazing. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from http://www.stophazing.org/ Nuwer, H. (2004). The hazing reader. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. Shneidman, E. (1993). Suicide as psychache: A clinical approach to self-destructive behavior. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Sweet, S. (2004). Understanding fraternity hazing. In H. Nuwer (Ed.), The hazing reader (pp. 1–13). Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Video Games In the search for explanations when school shootings occur, many have pointed to violent video games as culprits. A number of school and campus shooters were obsessed with playing violent video games, which some experts say are

507

508

Video Games

designed to teach people to kill. Others maintain that while playing video games is not the healthiest habit, scores of people do it every day and do not perpetrate acts of violence. Michael Carneal was a fan of the violent games Doom, Quake, and Mortal Kombat. The families of some of his Paducah, Kentucky, victims filed suit against the makers of these games in the aftermath of his crimes, claiming they were an influence on Carneal. The suit was not successful. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the Columbine High School shooters, were avid players of Doom, and Harris had even written programs for the game. Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, was also said to have been a gamer, preferring Counterstrike. An article in the American Psychological Association’s Journal of Personality and Social Psychology reported on two studies related to video games and violence. In the first, 227 college students completed a survey on their aggressive behaviors and video game playing. Those who played more reported both more aggressive behavior and lower grades in college. In the second study, 210 college students played either a violent video game (Wolfenstein 3D) or a nonviolent video game (Myst). Afterward, they were asked to “punish an opponent” by pressing a

Teens surround computer screens as they play the game Counter-Strike at a Los Angeles cybercafe´. These kinds of games are often seen as catalysts to physical violence. (AP/Wide World Photos)

Video Games

button that made a loud noise. Those who had played the violent game pushed the button longer. A 2004 study of 607 eighth- and ninth-grade students found that those who played video games were more hostile, got into more physical fights as well as more arguments with teachers, and had lower grades. A 2004 meta-analysis (a review of previous studies) found a causal link between exposure to violent video games and aggressive affect, aggressive behavior, and decreases in helping behavior. Henry Jenkins, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor and Director of Comparative Studies, has listed eight myths about video games. First, he maintains that widespread availability of video games does not correlate with any spike in juvenile violence. Rather, rates of juvenile violence have deceased at the same time more kids are playing video games. Jenkins notes that it makes sense that many of the school shooters have been game players, given that 90% of boys and 40% of girls in the general public play video games. Second, Jenkins points out the lack of scientific evidence linking the playing of violent video games to acts of aggression. While more than 300 studies have addressed media violence, many have been critiqued for methodological concerns, are not conclusive, or are not contextualized. Third, Jenkins explains that the primary target market for video games has shifted. Whereas marketing was once focused on children, it is now directed at people older than the age of 18. Fourth, while boys still outnumber girls, there have been dramatic increases in the number of girls playing video games. Fifth, even if Grossman and others are correct that video games were created and are used to train soldiers to kill, there is no reason to believe the same effect occurs with young people who play them in their homes rather than through military training. Sixth, many video games offer players practice in making ethical or moral choices, which can be important practice for real-world experiences. Seventh, Jenkins maintains that video games are generally played in groups, with 60% of young people saying they play with friends. Thus games are not necessarily socially isolating, as some contend. Finally, Jenkins argues that rather than desensitizing young people, video games are an important part of young people’s play activities. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Anderson, C. (2004). An update on the effects of playing violent video games. Journal of Adolescence, 27(1), 113–122. Anderson, C., & Dill, K. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 772–790.

509

510

Violent Nonsexual Crimes, College

Benedetti, W. (2007, April 20). Were video games to blame for massacre? MSNBC. Retrieved May 11, 2010, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/ 18220228/ Gee, J. (2001). What video games have to tell us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave. Gentile, D., Lynch, P., Linder, J., & Walsh, D. (2004). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance. Journal of Adolescence, 27(1), 5–22. Grossman, D. (1995). On killing: The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society. New York: Little, Brown. Jenkins, H. (n.d.). Reality bytes: Eight myths about video games debunked. PBS. Retrieved May 11, 2010, from http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/ impact/myths.html Jones, G. (2002). Killing monsters: Why children need fantasy, superheroes, and make believe violence. New York: Basic. Laidman, J. (1999, April 27). Video games figure in school shootings. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved May 11, 2010, from http://www.post-gazette.com/ headlines/19990427games4.asp

Violent Nonsexual Crimes, College Before the 1960s, institutions of higher learning were regarded as sanctuaries—places where crime and criminal justice did not intrude. The 1970s marked one of the most significant decades in the evolution of violence-related crime in higher education. Since the deaths of four students at Kansas State University, the incidence of violent crimes on campus has increased and the types of violence have proliferated. Crimes on U.S. college campuses have also been influenced by political implications. For example, some citizens have advocated for fewer guns and more stringent gun control laws, while gun advocates have called for legislation permitting students and faculty to carry concealed weapons on campus. Crimes in postsecondary institutions (including murder, aggravated assault, hazing, and alcohol and drug abuse) have both threatened campus safety and affected students’ quality of life. The subject of violent crime in colleges has received significant attention by Congress and educational officials during the last two decades. In 1990, Congress enacted the Campus Security Act and the Student Right-to-Know Act, mandating that all postsecondary institutions make crime statistics available to the campus community, prospective students, and their parents. In 1991, the law was renamed in memory of Jeanne Clery, a Lehigh University student who was murdered on campus in 1986. Institutions are also

Violent Nonsexual Crimes, College

required to develop safety measures and procedures for notifying the authorities when a crime occurs. While criminal acts are not new in higher education, the frequency and magnitude of violent crimes at some American college campuses have been highlighted by the media. A survey that was conducted after the enactment of the 1990 legislation reported 30 murders in 2,400 institutions of postsecondary education. Equally disturbing, other types of violent crimes occurred on these campuses as well during the 1991–1992 academic year. In 1998, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported 19 murders on four-year college campuses. Over a three-year period (1998–2000), the Department of Education reported 53 murders at U.S. colleges and universities. The report also noted 3,822 aggravated assaults in 1998, 3,606 aggravated assaults in 1999, and 3,644 aggravated assaults in 2000. In 2002, the Department of Education reported 23 murders on college campuses, up from 17 in 2000. Concealed weapons pose one of the greatest dangers to higher education communities. Over the past two decades, there have been approximately 14 major shootings on college campuses nationwide: Three were committed by campus outsiders, one by a visiting parent, and eight by current or former graduate students (in nursing, medicine, or law). Violent crime on college campuses is prevalent, but several murderous incidents have shocked the country over the years. At the University of Texas in Austin in 1966, 16 people were killed and 32 were hospitalized. Ten years later, at California State University in Fullerton, 7 people were executed and 2 others wounded. In 1991, at the University of Iowa, 5 people were murdered and another paralyzed before the gunman committed suicide. At Northern Illinois University on Valentine’s Day in 2008, 5 people including the gunman died; another 18 were wounded. The shootings at Virginia Tech in April 16, 2007, which claimed 33 lives (including the shooter, Seung-Hui Cho), had deep resonance at the University of Texas, where the first university massacre occurred. Aside from those killed, the gunman wounded 17 more people, making it the bloodiest massacre by a single person in U.S. history. Several other acts of violence were committed by students in the 1990s. At Simon’s Rock College, two people were killed and four others wounded in 1992; at San Diego State University, three professors were murdered in 1996. In 1998, at Wayne State University, a professor was murdered. In 1995, a student conspired to commit murder at Florida State University, while a shooting spree occurred at the University of Arizona but no one was injured. Between 2000 and 2001, four people were murdered by former students: one at the University of Arkansas, and three at Appalachian School of Law. In 2005, four more people died (including the gunman) at Arizona State University, and a debate coach at Stanford University in Alabama stabbed a student to death in 1989. Other college incidents include a professor at Louisiana Tech University who attacked a

511

512

Violent Nonsexual Crimes, College

colleague with a hammer; a Tidewater Community College professor who conspired to kill a colleague in 2006; and a professor at the University of Massachusetts in Lowell who was attacked with a knife. While many incidents involved students and teachers, other assaults were committed by strangers, such as when Julian Robbins killed one Penn State student and wounded another. At Indiana University, an armed stranger assaulted a professor. There are approximately 16 million students enrolled in 4,200 colleges and universities in the United States. Although violent crimes are a small fraction of all crimes committed on campus (hovering at less than 1% in many instances), there is still a good reason to be concerned. Currently, the number of violent crimes being reported in postsecondary institutions is moving upward, a trend that appears likely to continue unabated into the immediate future. After the deadly 2007 Virginia Tech shootings, campus security became a highly visible issue, and the search for effective methods to curb violent crimes was highlighted. Institutions around the nation took a hard look at their campus security measures and considered how they could be upgraded. Following other incidents of violent crimes on college campuses, some institutions (including those in Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, and Mississippi) focused on improving communications and security systems inside the campuses. In September 2007, Delaware State University in Dover earned praise for responding quickly to a shooting incident on the campus. Three day earlier, the University of Maryland at College Park had successfully alerted students by cell phones, warning them of imminent danger on the campus. Hazing and alcohol-fueled incidents are another form of violent crime on campus that has become more prevalent. Fraternities and sororities also contribute to excessive (and frequently dangerous) drinking on college campuses. While fraternities promote self-improvement, they may also promote dangerous behavior such as binge drinking, hazing and other forms of physical abuse, and other lifethreatening activities. Research shows that at least one college student has died from alcohol poisoning–related initiations every year from 1970 to 2005. An infamous hazing incident at Alfred University in 1978 led to the death of a 20-year-old freshman. Other hazing-related deaths occurred at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1997, where a freshman died; at Auburn University, where Chad Saucier died; and at Wabash College, where an 18-year-old freshman died in 2008. At St. Louis University, a student died after receiving electrical shocks while his skin was coated with flammable chemicals. Another student at the State University of New York died in 2003 after he was forced to drink excessive amounts of water for 10 days. In other cases, students have suffered permanent damage to their organs from hazing. For example, in 1988, five hockey players at Kent State University were forced to drink a mixture of alcoholic beverages and one student was hospitalized.

Violent Nonsexual Crimes, College

At the University of Northern Colorado in 1990, a baseball player was paralyzed after sliding into a pool of mud. During the 1999–2000 academic year, nine hockey players at the University of Vermont were badly injured in hazing. Members of the band at Southern University in Baton Rouge were beaten (and two victims were hospitalized) in 1983. A University of Michigan student suffered kidney failure after being deprived of food, and Ivery Lucky of Florida A&M University suffered renal failure after being beaten as part of a hazing ritual. This deadly behavior led to the growth in the number of states with anti-hazing statutes, from 25 in 1990 to 44 in 2006. Hate-motivated crimes are intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of that person’s race, national or ethnicity origin, religion, disability, or gender/sexual orientation. Hate-motivated crime that targets students, staff, and faculty deprives everyone on the campus of a chance to live and learn in an atmosphere free from fear and intimidation. In 2007, three football players assaulted Palestinian students at the Quaker-affiliated Guilford College campus in North Carolina. While they almost certainly occur frequently, hate crimes are often under-reported on campuses because victims are reluctant to come forward, due to fear of retaliation and repercussions. The Virginia Tech massacre led many campuses to develop plans to alert students, staff, and faculty of safety threats in minutes, using cell phone and text messaging technology. The University of Maryland is among the hundreds of colleges that have signed contracts with vendors to help with text and voice alerts to students’ cell phones in the event of emergencies. Institutions have also increased the security presence on their campuses. For example, in 1988, the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign campus employed 37 police officers. Colleges and universities are expected not only to protect the campus community from intruders, but also to take active steps to reduce the major risk factors associated with campus violent crimes. A more productive approach would focus on breaking the culture of silence that prevents students from reporting when a threat is imminent and reaching out to students before they commit violent crimes. Substance abuse and acts of violence should never be tolerated or accepted as forms of coping on campus. Each campus should be prepared to handle emergencies in a timely manner through ongoing education and development of a responsive culture involving staff, faculty, and students. While campuses are relatively safe, coordinated planning will ensure preparation for all future emergencies. Njoki-Wa-Kinyatti Further Reading Jost, K. (2007, May). Gun violence: Are stronger measures needed to protect society? [Electronic version]. CQ Researcher, 17(20), 1–33.

513

514

Violent Nonsexual Crimes, High School

Lavant, B. (2000). Faces of violence: Psychological correlates, concepts and intervention strategies. Huntington: Nova Science. Wood, P. (2007). Homicide in higher education: Some reflections on the moral mission of the university [Electronic version]. Academic Questions, 20, 277–294.

Violent Nonsexual Crimes, High School In general, the term “violent crime” refers to any criminal action wherein one or more offenders use either physical violence or the threat of physical violence against one or more victims, as in the case of aggravated assault or armed robbery. Government agencies that study violent crimes, such as the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, typically treat the following offenses as violent crimes: aggravated assault, simple assault, rape, robbery, homicide, and non-negligent manslaughter. However, a broader definition could include other forms of violence such as psychological violence as in the cases of bullying, harassment, and stalking. As to the prevalence of violent school crimes, all of the available evidence indicates that schools are relatively safe places. For example, an analysis of National Incident-Based Reporting System data on more than 17 million offenses that occurred from 2000 to 2004 showed that fewer than 1 out of 20 crimes (3.3%) occurred at schools. In other words, more than 95% of crime occurs somewhere other than on school properties. Although highly violent school crimes that result in multiple fatalities—such as the 1997 shootings at Heath High School in West Paducah, Kentucky; the 1998 shootings at Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon; the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado; and the 2005 shootings at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota— receive a great deal of attention from the media and the general public, such incidents are rare. The fact is that the chances of a youth being feloniously killed by a classmate while at school are less than one in 1 million. For instance, data from the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice show that during the 2005–2006 school year, there were 14 homicides of youths between the ages of 5 and 18 on school properties. In other words, during the 2005–2006 school year there was one student homicide per every 3.8 million students. Research conducted by the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice also shows that during the 2005–2006 school year, only 1% of students reported having been the victim of a violent crime and less than 0.5% of students reported being the victim of a serious violent crime at school such as aggravated assault, rape, or robbery. Nonetheless, the potential for serious school violence is omnipresent. One problem that contributes to this risk is the presence of weapons in schools.

Violent Nonsexual Crimes, High School

Research has consistently shown that many students bring weapons such as guns and knives to school. The most recent data available from the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice show that during the 2005–2006 school year, roughly one out of every 10 males reported having carried a weapon to school. Another factor that contributes to the widespread potential for serious violence in schools is gang activity. Research has shown that gang youths engage in more violent activity than youths not involved with gang activity and that youth gang activity at school increases the potential for school violence. As to the extent of gang activity in schools, the most recent figures available from the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice show that 24% of students reported gangs were present in their school, with 17% of principals reporting problems with gang activity at school. The good news is that violence in the schools has substantially decreased since the mid-1990s. For example, during the 1990s there were roughly 30 youth homicides per year at schools; by comparison, during the 2005–2006 school year, there were only 14 homicides of youths at school. That is a 50% decrease in schoolassociated homicides in less than a decade. The rates of nonfatal victimization dropped over this period as well. However, even though there are far fewer violent crimes than property crimes at school and even though the rates of violent crimes at school have substantially decreased since the 1990s, the majority of public schools still experience some type of violent crime. Research conducted by the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice shows that during the 2005–2006 school year, 78% of all public schools reported at least one incident of violence and that 17% of all public schools reported at least one serious violent offense such as rape or weapons-related assault. It is important to keep in mind that the aforementioned figures on school violence pertain to physical violence such as assaults. As previously discussed, some nonphysical behaviors such as verbal threats and bullying can be considered as forms of violence. The research on school violence suggests that these types of violence occur in schools on a daily basis. For example, a report from the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice indicates that during the 2005–2006 school year, roughly one-third of students (28%) had been bullied; moreover, almost one-fourth of public schools (24%) reported that bullying among students was a daily or weekly occurrence. These figures probably underestimate the true extent of nonphysical aggression. In a qualitative study of bullying among males, Phillips (2007) used the term “punking” to describe the practice of verbal and physical humiliation, shaming, and violence that males use (typically against one another) in an effort to demonstrate their masculinity. According to the boys interviewed by Phillips, “punking” is a common practice. To provide another example, in a study of female aggression based on interviews with adolescent and adult females, Simmons (2002) argues that females frequently use aggressive intimidation tactics against one another, not by means of threatening violence but through the use of gossip, networking,

515

516

Violent Nonsexual Crimes, High School

and social isolation. Simmons contends that school-aged girls are in constant competition with one another for social status and utilize a variety of forms of bullying to achieve and maintain social standing. A review of the research on bullying and intimidation suggests that there are a few important gender differences between such forms of aggression. First, males tend to be more physical when bullying other males and the bullying may evolve from verbal threats to physical violence. Research conducted by the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice shows that, among students who reported being the victim of bullying, males were almost twice as likely as females (31% versus 18%) to have been injured during incidents of bullying. Second, in contrast to aggression among males wherein the victim is typically an enemy of the perpetrator, Simmons’ research on female aggression indicates that females tend to target girls in their own circle of immediate friends. Finally, whereas male bullying tends to be overt, female bullying tends to be covert. For example, whereas the practice of male “punking” often occurs in public with the goal being the public humiliation and intimidation of the victim, female bullying is often subtle and conducted in private among a female clique wherein only the victim and those who are bullying her are aware of the incidents. In summary, although the rates of school violence have decreased since the 1990s, violence remains a problem in schools. Fatalities stemming from violence are relatively rare occurrences in schools, and serious physical violence is far less common than other types of crime such as theft and vandalism. Nevertheless, owing to the presence of weapons and gangs in schools, there is always the possibility of serious physical violence. In addition, threats of physical violence and psychological violence such as bullying and intimidation are common occurrences in schools. Violence in schools is a problem not only because it can result in serious physical injury and death, but also because it negatively affects the quality of education afforded to the nation’s youth. Students who are attacked, bullied, or constantly fearful of being violently victimized may have difficulties concentrating on their studies and in some cases even skip school due to fear. Likewise, teachers who are concerned about the physical safety of their students and themselves may be unable to provide effective instruction. For their part, administrators may devote excessive amounts of time and energy to dealing with violence and threats of violence, which in turn detracts from their abilities to focus on the quality of education afforded to the students. Concisely stated, school violence can have a negative impact on the entire school environment. Ben Brown Further Reading Brown, B. (2004). Juveniles and weapons: Recent research, conceptual considerations, and programmatic interventions. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2, 161–184.

Virginia Tech Massacre

Dinkes, R., Cataldi, E. F., Lin-Kelly, W., & Snyder, T. D. (2007, December). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2007 (NCES 2008-021/NCJ 219553). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, & U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Esbensen, F. A. (2008). In-school victimization: Reflections of a researcher. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24, 114–124. Howell, J. C., & Decker, S. H. (1999, January). The youth gangs, drugs, and violence connection (NCJ 171152). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Howell, J. C., & Lynch, J. P. (2000, August). Youth gangs in schools (NCJ 183015). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Noonan, J. H., & Vavra, M. C. (2007, October). Crime in schools and colleges: A study of offenders and arrestees reported via National Incident-Based Reporting System Data. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Justice Information Services Division. Phillips, D. A. (2007). Punking and bullying: Strategies in middle school, high school, and beyond. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(2), 158–178. Simmons, R. (2002). Odd girl out: The hidden culture of aggression in girls. New York: Harcourt.

Virginia Tech Massacre In the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, Virginia Tech student Seung-Hui Cho, age 23, killed 27 students, five professors, and then himself on April 16, 2007. At 7:15 A.M., Cho shot a man and a woman in West Ambler Johnston dormitory. He ran away before the police arrived; when the police came, they focused on the boyfriend of one of the victims as the would-be shooter. Approximately 2½ hours later, Cho entered a classroom in Norris Hall, an engineering building, where he gunned down students in an advanced hydrology class as well as in other classrooms. When police responded to a 911 call, they found that three of the entrances to the building had been chained shut. They finally got into the building 11 minutes after Cho began his attack there, by shooting the lock out of the door to a machine shop. A student who was in one of the classrooms, Trey Perkins, told MSNBC that Cho never said a word—he simply entered the room and began firing. In addition to the fatalities, at least 15 students were wounded. Others sustained injuries as they leapt to safety from their classroom windows.

517

518

Virginia Tech Massacre

The shootings followed two weeks of bomb threats at the university, although these threats do not appear to have been the work of Cho. The university and police waited two hours after the shootings began to send the first email notification to students. This message simply warned students to be cautious and did not instruct them to stay away from the classrooms—even though Cho was still at large at the time. The university canceled classes for the remainder of the day on Monday and for the following day. It set up a meeting place for families to reunite with their children at a local hotel, and brought in extra counselors to assist the grieving, confused, and angry students. Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine returned early from a trip to Asia and declared a state of emergency in Blacksburg, the city where the university is located. Approximately one year after the shooting, Governor Kaine announced that a fund of $100,000 had been set up to assist the families of students killed. Each was also offered counseling and medical expenses, as well as the chance to question the governor and university officials about the shooting. Additional funds were made available to the dozens of survivors of the rampage. Families and survivors accepting the settlement had to agree to forego the right to sue the university. Almost two years later, the university re-opened the wing of Norris Hall where the shooting occurred. A ceremony celebrated the opening of the Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention. Cho was born in South Korea, and his family immigrated to the United States when he was eight years old. Lucinda Roy, a former Virginia Tech professor, authored a book called No Right to Remain Silent in spring 2009, in which she argued that she, and others, saw warning signs that Cho was dangerous. As co-chair of the English Department in fall 2005, Roy was told by a colleague about Cho’s disturbing writing and behavior. Classmates were afraid of Cho, who would take pictures of them with his cell phone camera from under the desks. Roy began to tutor Cho privately, and found him to be generally unresponsive. Roy said she tried to alert those on campus who might help the clearly troubled student, contacting four different departments including the university police and counseling center, but no one offered Cho the help he needed. They maintained that no one could coerce a student to get counseling; thus, until Cho came in voluntarily or actually threatened himself or someone else overtly, there was nothing they could do. When Cho threatened suicide, he did get some help from a psychiatric facility off campus. Once he was deemed no longer a threat, however, he was released. Cho contacted the school’s mental health counseling center later that year, but records from these sessions remained missing until July 2009, when they were found at the home of a former university counseling official, Dr. Robert C. Miller. It is still unclear why Miller took the records home more than a year before Cho’s massacre. Parents of children who were killed or wounded in the rampage

Virginia Tech Massacre

were outraged at this finding, suggesting that it indicates further lapses on the part of the university and the police, and even that it hints at deception. Roy said that Cho went to the center multiple times, but never received a thorough examination. Because Cho was older than the age of 21, his parents were never contacted about any of these matters. A state panel that was convened after the shooting determined that the university had misinterpreted privacy laws. Further, the panel determined that the school did not notify students fast enough once the shooting began. Many victims’ parents have expressed a belief that their children would still be alive if the university had responded to Cho’s obvious distress earlier. Since the shootings, Virginia Tech has hired new counselors and created a risk assessment team to identify and work with troubled students. Prior to Cho’s rampage, the most deadly university shooting had occurred in 1966 at the University of Texas. In that attack, Charles Whitman killed 16 people from the observation deck of a 28-floor clock tower before he was shot by police. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Agger, B. There is a gunman on campus: Tragedy and terror at Virginia Tech. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Brezina, C. (2000). Deadly school and campus violence. New York: Rosen. Gelineau, K. (2008, March 25).Va. offers Tech shooting victims’ families $100,000 each, chance for questions in settlement. Daily Journal Online. Retrieved July 21, 2009, from http://dailyjournalonline.com/articles/2008/03/ 25/news/doc47e9107404fd7232010633.txt Goldner, D. (2009, April 11). Site of Virginia Tech shooting rampage reopened as Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention. New York Daily News. Retrieved July 21, 2009, from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/ 2009/04/11/2009-04-11_site_of_virginia_tech_shooting_rampage_reopened _as_center_for_peace_studies_and_.ht ml Johnson, A. (2007, April 17). Worst school shooting ever kills 33 on Va. campus. MSNBC. Retrieved July 21, 2009, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/ 18134671/ Lindsey, S. (2009, July 23). Killer’s health records found. Miami Herald, p. 3A. Roy, L. (2009). No right to remain silent: The tragedy at Virginia Tech. New York: Harmony. Warning signs ignored in Va. Tech shooting. (2009, April 7). CBS Evening News [online]. Retrieved July 21, 2009, from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/ 04/07/eveningnews/main4927476.shtml

519

This page intentionally left blank

W Weise, Jeff On March 23, 2005, six years after the infamous Columbine High School massacre, another tragic high school shooting occurred, this time in Minnesota. On that day, Jeff Weise, a 16-year-old adolescent, killed two family members— first his sleeping grandfather, and later his grandfather’s life partner—in their home. He then drove his grandfather’s police cruiser to nearby Red Lake High School. He was armed with three weapons. Surprising a school security guard, whom he shot and killed, as students and teachers tried to flee. Using his murdered gradnfather’s handgun and shotgun, Weise shot randomly at surprised students and teachers who had crowded into a room. He attempted to enter other classrooms, but was encountered Red Lake Police, with whom he exchanged gunshots. Weise was wounded several times and escaped back into a school room, where he committed suicide. The violence, which was over in 10 minutes, left seven students wounded and 10 dead, including Weise. Red Lake is a fairly remote town populated by residents of the Red Lake American Indian Reservation. It is located in northern Minnesota a few hundred miles from the Canadian border. Weise was a Chippewa Native American Indian, and learned about his indigenous ethnic identity while living on the reservation. At the age of nine, Weise lost his father; the elder Weise was apparently despondent and committed suicide. Jeff moved to Red Lake following the incapacitation of his mother in 1999. Essentially orphaned, Weise moved in with his grandmother, who raised him. Following the shooting, it was reported that 100 FBI agents worked the case to determine the characteristics of the crime. At the same time that community and tribal leaders mourned the loss of life, the media descended on the town, issuing with numerous news reports covering the massacre. One British reporter counted thousands of Google Internet hits on Jeff Weise’s name in a matter of weeks.

521

522

Weise, Jeff

The media reported many descriptions of Weise that provided numerous clever story lines concerning his family, personal history, and potential reasons why he committed the shootings. Among them were Weise’s unstable family history. Later, concerns about his medication and counseling were highlighted. Reports about Weise’s writings about zombies, his identification as a Goth (a teen subculture interested in dark and dangerous images), his dressing in black clothing including trench coats (associating him with the Columbine murders), and his involvement and posts supporting Hitler on neo-Nazi websites—all supposedly links to obsessions with violence and power. Other factors cited in his attack included video games (Grand Theft Auto was mentioned) and the movie Elephant (about a shooting). In all of these cases there were appealing descriptions and plausible arguments about Weise’s motives, but no evidence was given about any direct links that produced the loss of life. While general patterns in school shootings have been established by researchers who study data on such events, there is no single motive that causes this rare form of violence. Extensive research concerning school shootings has reached the conclusion that while specific risk factors may be involved, the specific constellation of factors that prompt a mass murder or a murder-suicide in a school is unique to each unfortunate incident. Such is the conclusion reached in the National Research Council Institute of Medicine’s 2003 book, Deadly Lessons: Understanding Lethal School Violence. The school shooting incident at Red Lake is classified as a rural murder-suicide. Such incidents are quite rare, and the factors in such events that are cited by behavioral scientists include a mix of the most influential variables that can be used to develop a model that explain the murders. The following scenario has been proposed to explain Weise’s high school massacre. Weise’s family history reveals some mental illness, given his father’s suicide in 1997; there also appear to be genetic dispositions toward despondency, given that Weise was prescribed an antidepressant for diagnosed depression. Researchers also report that some high school shooting perpetrators learn about suicides in high school shootings through multiple media reports, television news, newspaper articles, magazines, and the movie industry. If this exposure coincides with a triggering event or incident, perpetrators may impulsively reason that their violent plans will likewise resolve their own dilemma. The tendency for suicides to cluster following media reports is referred to as the copycat phenomenon. Orphaned at age 11, Weise experienced two major stressful life events—first parental loss and then moving hundreds of miles to live with his grandmother in Red Lake. Weise lived with her from age 11 to about age 15; it is unclear how long he lived with his grandfather. Research has shown that family bonds are important insulators from delinquency. It appears that Weise’s family support was mediocre at best.

Weise, Jeff

As Weise matured during adolescence, his behavior became problematic to school officials. This conflict eventually led to a stressful event in his life: He was expelled from school for misbehavior. The punishment produced an even greater lack of involvement in high school activities and further insulation from friends and teachers. While Weise apparently accepted home schooling, this experience may have affected him detrimentally. During high school, Weise was reported to be involved in blogging on a number of Internet websites, including a neo-Nazi website that discussed racial purity theories. Research documents that Weise was alarmed by the dilution of his classmates’ tribal heritage, symbolized by their listening to rap music. According to Weise, only weak students embraced rap music, which ruined their Native American Indian racial purity. Apparently Weise had read material on websites that discussed Adolph Hitler’s politics of authoritarianism and nativism, views that can be appealing to an idealistic and alienated adolescent male. One theme that emerges from this ideology is racial decline. It appears that this distorted racist ideology exacerbated paranoia in Weise (after all he was expelled) and heightened his distrust and perhaps rejection of classmates. This further removed him from group affiliation. Indeed, records show he reported himself as a complete loner, without any friends. In a context of depression and paranoia and then rejection by the school, Weise’s attack appears to be his way of seeking redress for a series of private irritations from his past treatment. Lacking any loyalty to significant others, Weise had little to constrain his conscience and formed a faulty sense of righteousness in his causes. The murder of his grandfather reveals the extent of family disassociation: In most families, a bond of love and loyalty forms among family members. For the most part, youth tend to communicate their angst to others. Weise did not say much about his frustrations, although his cousin, Louis Jourdain, was later arrested and charged with conspiracy in the Red Lake shootings. Investigators found that Weise had shared some of his personal conflicts with the school and classmates with Jourdain, who had himself engaged in making general threats to the school. Other students also indicated that Weise made vague allusions to violence that might occur at the school. This behavior supports the contention that Weise’s paranoid ideation and revenge plans were partially concealed. In most cases, friends of high school shooters report that they learned about some part of their plan prior to its implementation. Given this fact, media organizations have set up hotlines to encourage anonymous reporting (e.g., 1-866-SPEAK-UP) of possible violence. As part of the move to stem the tide of high school murders, current laws allow for prosecution of students who have communicated with others about violence and of anyone who may support or conceal the students’ secret, lethal plans. High schools across the country have established safety procedures and encourage students’ reporting of any potential violence to them.

523

524

Whitman, Charles

In Weise’s case, it appears that a combination of distorted perceptions, paranoid and suicidal thinking that increased after his expulsion from school, and possibly conflict with his disciplinarian grandfather (a police officer on the reservation) fueled his plans. Some of the distortions were encouraged by extremist Internet websites and may have led to rejection by, and perhaps contempt of, his Indian classmates owing to Weise’s sense of superiority. Probably other unspecified conflicts were taken as personal slights that offended him. For isolated and lonely youth, the best solution may appear to be exacting revenge on those who they perceived have hurt them. For Weise, that meant his grandfather (living with his partner), the school, and his classmates. Following his horrible deeds, he chose to mimic the actions of other murderers before him and commit suicide. The unfortunate postscript to the story of Jeff Weise, and the legacy of high school shooters in general, is that by talking about their frustrations with adults, they might have come to understand that their irritations could be greatly reduced through peaceful means. James Steinberg Further Reading Fox, J., & Levin, J. (2005). Extreme killing: Understanding serial and mass murder. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Marzuk, P., Tardiff, K., & Hisch, C. (1992). The epidemiology of murder-suicide. Journal of the American Medical Association, 267(23), 3179.

Whitman, Charles On August 1, 1966, Charles Joseph Whitman, age 25, perched himself on the observation deck of Austin’s 231-foot University of Texas (UT) tower. For 96 minutes, he fired upon unsuspecting strangers below. Earlier that morning, Whitman had murdered his mother and his wife at their residences, supposedly to spare them the embarrassment of what he was about to do from atop the tower. Before he was shot to death by police, he had left people wounded and dead on the stairway and reception area of the observation deck and over a four-block area below. The death toll amounted to 14 people (not including Whitman, his mother, and his wife), with 32 others wounded. Mass murders were a rare occurrence in the United States in 1966. Whitman’s was a very public and random attack by someone who appeared to be the allAmerican boy. At the time, the nation was still recovering from a shock that had occurred two weeks earlier, when eight student nurses were brutally stabbed and strangled in their shared Chicago townhouse in July 1966 by a down-and-out

Whitman, Charles

drifter, and sometime merchant marine, named Richard Speck. Speck had the lifestyle and demeanor of the public’s stereotype of someone who would harm innocent strangers. In contrast, the 6-foot-tall, 198-pound, blonde-haired Whitman had the background and appearance of the proverbial “boy next door.” Whitman, the eldest of three boys brought up in an intact upper middle-class home, was a former altar boy and, at age 12, the youngest Eagle Scout in the country. He studied piano and excelled at that activity at an early age. He graduated seventh in a class of 72 from a Catholic high school in West Palm Beach, Florida. His father (C. A. Whitman), the owner of a successful plumbing business in Lake Worth, Florida, was a strict disciplinarian toward his sons and physically abusive toward his wife. C. A. Whitman taught his sons to use guns at an early age. In a photograph (now widely viewed) of Charles Whitman taken at age two, he could be seen holding a rifle upright in each hand; the rifles stood taller than the toddler. Three days after Whitman’s 18th birthday, he enlisted in the Marines, reportedly to escape his domineering father. His time in the Marine Corps had its ups and downs. He won a highly competitive Naval Enlisted Science Education Program scholarship and entered UT-Austin as a mechanical engineering major. However, Whitman dropped out of school and returned to active duty after a year and a half when the military withdrew the scholarship, due to declining grades and prankish behavior (e.g., poaching a deer and then butchering it in a dorm shower). Later, there were also a court martial, time spent in confinement, and a demotion in rank (from lance corporal to private) for lending money to fellow Marines at usurious rates, threatening a Marine, and possessing a personal firearm on base. On the plus side of his experience in the Marines, Whitman received a sharpshooter badge and an honorable discharge. During his initial enrollment at UT-Austin, Whitman (then age 21) met and married fellow student Kathy Leissner (age 19). After his discharge from the service, Whitman reenrolled at UT, this time majoring in architectural engineering. Upon her graduation, Kathy began teaching high school biology, providing the majority of the household income. Whitman continued to receive financial support from his father, while holding various jobs including that of bill collector and bank teller. Although he obtained a real estate license and became bonded as an insurance salesman, he did not actually sell any real estate or insurance. His last job was that of a research assistant for a civil engineering professor’s highway traffic flow study. A panel of experts, commissioned by then Texas Governor John Connally, searched for answers to what could have caused the massacre they had at their disposal notes written by Whitman that were left at his home and his mother’s apartment, diary entries that Whitman was in the habit of writing, the records of the psychiatrist he had visited in March 1966 (who also served on the

525

526

Whitman, Charles

Commission), and, most importantly, the results of an autopsy that Whitman himself had requested be performed. The months preceding the shooting found Whitman overworked at school and stressed by his parents’ marital discord. His grades had been declining and he had been spreading himself too thin, although he did give up a scout master position that he had held for a year. In the spring 1966 semester, he had been carrying a heavy course load, had helped to move his mother from an abusive marriage in Florida to her own apartment in Austin, and was under pressure from his father’s frequent phone calls asking the younger Whitman to convince the mother to move back with the father. During this time he had severe headaches, chewed his fingernails, ate a lot, and gained weight. He took Dexedrine (an amphetamine) to stay awake during long periods of studying for exams and he took two large bottles of Excedrin in a three-month period, for frequent headaches. In his only session with UT psychiatrist Dr. Maurice Dean Heatly, Whitman admitted that he had hit his own wife on two occasions, hated his father, and had thoughts of shooting people from the tower with a deer rifle. Dr. Heatly made note of these comments and evaluated Whitman as full of hostility, but had no reason to suspect that Whitman would follow through on his thoughts about the tower. By the summer, Whitman was enrolled in 14 hours of coursework and working at the research job, while his wife took a summer job at the phone company. Apparently Whitman reached his breaking point and began planning the murders. On July 31, he put the plan into action by taking his mother’s life around midnight. It has been reported that, according to the mother’s brothers, the elder Whitman had financially cut off Whitman and his mother effective July 30. If that information is accurate, it could explain Whitman’s timing. Shortly after 12:00 A.M. on August 1, Whitman apparently strangled his mother, shot her in the head, stabbed her in the chest, and crushed her left hand so severely that the diamond popped out of her engagement ring and a deep impression was left on her finger by her wedding ring. He then left a note expressing his love for her. He posted a forged a note on her door asking that she not be disturbed. Later that morning, he phoned his mother’s employer to say she was ill and would not be in. At his own home, Whitman stabbed his sleeping wife several times in the chest and left a note dated 3:00 A.M. professing his love for her. He left notes for his brothers and his father. Later, he called his wife’s employer to report that she was ill and would not be in. Among the errands he ran later that morning were purchases of weapons and ammunition, adding to the stockpile of weapons he already owned. The arsenal Whitman brought with him to the tower that day included a 6-mm Remington 700 bolt-action rifle with four-power scope, a 12-gauge sawedoff shotgun, a .30-caliber M-1 carbine rifle, a .35-caliber pump-action Remington rifle, a 9-mm Luger pistol, a .357 magnum Smith and Wesson revolver,

Whitman, Charles

a 6.35-mm Galesi-Brescia pistol, about 700 rounds of ammunition, a machete, a hatchet, and three hunting knives. When he drove onto the campus with coveralls over his clothing and showed his research assistant identification card, he received a loading zone permit. At the tower building, he used a two-wheel dolly (rented earlier that morning) to transport his gear, most of which was in his Marine footlocker. In addition to the weapons, Whitman had food, water, a transistor radio to monitor news reports, a flashlight, batteries, and an assortment of other necessities (including toilet paper). He took the elevator to the 27th floor and hauled everything up the rest of the stairs to the observation deck. He eliminated one obstacle—the 28th-floor receptionist— by hitting her on the back of her head with a rifle butt and later shooting her. After encountering the receptionist, he was then greeted by a young couple exiting the observation deck. Whitman returned the greeting and let them pass by. But the next group he encountered presented interference, because they were on their way to the observation deck. He shot and killed two of this group (a woman and her teenage nephew), while wounding the other nephew and his aunt, as the husbands lagged a flight of stairs behind and escaped injury. The sniping from the tower began at 11:48 A.M. The height of the building, combined with the elevation of the land it was on, gave Whitman about a 300-foot vantage point. Whitman’s gunfire could be seen coming from the parapet surrounding the clock tower, but Whitman himself was hardly a visible target to those on the ground. The dead, shot on campus that day and across the street from campus at a business strip, included the following individuals: Edna Townsley, the 28th-floor receptionist; Margaret Lamport and her nephew, Mark Gabour, who were on their way to the observation deck; Tom Eckman, who was leaning over his wounded girlfriend (who survived, but lost their eight-month-old unborn child); Robert Boyer, a physics professor; Thomas Ashton, a Peace Corps trainee on his way from class; Thomas Karr, a student; Billy Speed, a police officer; Harry Walchuk, a community college professor working on his doctoral degree; Paul Sonntag and his girlfriend, Claudia Rutt, recent Austin high school graduates running errands on the Drag (the commercial area near the campus); Roy Schmidt, an electrician; and Karen Griffith, a high school senior walking along the Drag (who died from her injuries after a week in the hospital). Although officers and civilians returned Whitman’s fire from the ground and even from a small plane, but it was not until two police officers (accompanied by a deputized civilian) reached the tower that an end was brought to the rampage, when those two officers shot and killed Whitman. There continues to be speculation about what caused Whitman to terrorize so many complete strangers. His actions may have been meant to express his hatred for his father and thereby embarrass the elder Whitman. He may have had a mental breakdown from the work overload, combined with the pressure to get good

527

528

Wimberley, Teah

grades, while coping with his parents’ separation. Amphetamine psychosis has been suggested as well. However, Whitman’s careful planning and preparation on the day of the murders are not indicative of a break with reality. Dexedrine and Excedrin were found in his possession. His blood tested negative for alcohol. Because embalming of the body had been performed before urine and stomach contents could be examined, optimal toxicology testing was not possible. The note Whitman had left after killing his wife asked that an autopsy be done to determine whether he suffered from a disorder. The initial autopsy had misdiagnosed an astrocytoma (tumor) in his brain, but the Connally Commission (which included the doctor who had performed the initial autopsy) found the tumor to be a glioblastoma (highly cancerous). It remains unclear whether the tumor had a direct bearing on Whitman’s behavior. The Commission’s report was inconclusive on this matter, although the report did say that the tumor could have conceivably played a role. Those who were close to Whitman found comfort in believing that the tumor or his fears of having a brain disorder influenced his otherwise inexplicable actions on that infamous day. Joan Luxenburg Further Reading Douglas, J., & Olshaker, M. (1999). The anatomy of motive. New York: Scribner. LaVergne, G. M. (1997). A sniper in the tower: The Charles Whitman murders. Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press. Levin, J., & Fox, J. A. (1985). Mass murder: America’s growing menace. New York: Plenum Press.

Wimberley, Teah On November 12, 2008, 15-year-old Teah Wimberley shot her friend and classmate Amanda Collette, a star on the school hip-hop dance squad, at Dillard High School in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Collette was also 15 at the time. Wimberley had allegedly been interested in a romantic relationship, and when Collette rebuffed her advances, she became enraged. She shot Collette in between classes. After shooting Collette, Wimberley ran to a local restaurant, where she called 911 to report what she had done. Police arrested her at the restaurant and seized her gun. Wimberley was charged in adult court and found guilty of second-degree murder and possession of a weapon on school grounds. Her attorneys had offered an insanity defense. Although Wimberley faced life in prison for her crimes, the judge recommended that she be sent to a juvenile facility until she is 21, the minimum sentence possible.

Woodham, Luke

Wimberley had been raised by her grandparents after her parents separated before she was born. Her father, Jevon Wimberley, is in prison serving a 25-year sentence for second-degree murder. Wimberley had been abused as a child. During her trial, experts testified that she was very troubled and needed mental health counseling. Wimberley claimed she did not want to kill Collette, but simply sought to make her feel the same pain she had felt when Collette rejected her. In April 2010, Collette’s family filed suit against the Broward County Schools, arguing that their daughter’s death could have been prevented. The suit alleges that a teacher was told that a student had a gun on campus and the teacher failed to respond. Allegedly the student said Wimberley had pulled out the gun in science class and said she planned to use it to “make Collette feel pain.” After the class the student told his teacher, Hugues Douyon, but was sent back to his seat. Douyon has claimed he was never told about a gun. The family’s suit also criticizes the hand-held metal detectors the family claims were present but not in use. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Associated Press. (2008, November 13). Florida girl, 15, fatally shot during argument at high school. Fox News. Retrieved May 11, 2010, from http://www .foxnews.com/story/0,2933,450758,00.html Figueroa, L. (2009, December 9). Teah Wimberley found guilty in Dillard High slaying. Miami Herald. Retrieved May 11, 2010, from http://www .miamiherald.com/2009/12/09/1374563/teah-wimberley-found-guilty-in.html Johnson, A. (April 8, 2010). Victim’s family suing school board over Dillard High School shooting. Miami Herald. Retrieved May 11, 2010, from http://articles .sun-sentinel.com/2010-04-08/news/fl-wrongful-death-lawsuit-collette-20100408 _1_joyce-collette-metal-detectors-teah-wimberley Wimberley to victim’s mom: “I robbed you of Amanda.” (2010, March 26). WPLG Local 10. Retrieved May 11, 2010, from http://www.justnews.com/news/ 22963212/detail.html

Woodham, Luke On October 1, 1997, Luke Timms Woodham went on a school shooting spree after murdering his mother. Before this event, the 16-year-old from Pearl, Mississippi, had never been in trouble with the police or at school. This school shooting is noteworthy for several reasons: because it was the first of several such shootings that plagued the United States in the late 1990s, because so many people were shot,

529

530

Woodham, Luke

and because it involved a conspiracy investigation. The possibility of cult activity in this case sparked the national media’s attention, but in the end the allegations were unproven. Only two of the seven students arrested were sentenced: Luke Woodham, the only gunman, will remain in prison for the rest of his life, and friend Grant Boyette, who pleaded to a lesser charge, is now on supervised probation after serving time in a boot camp–style prison program. Although a troubled early life does not justify violence, Woodham certainly did not have an easy childhood or adolescence. His parents, Mary Ann and John Woodham, split up when Luke was seven years old. Mary Ann, who had always been very particular about her children’s clothing and activities, became even more overbearing. Luke’s older brother, John Jr., began staying away from home as much as possible, so Mary Ann assigned more chores to Luke. She also micromanaged what he ate and did while they were home together and was verbally abusive, calling him fat and saying that he would never amount to anything. When John Jr. was around, he would pick on Luke. With an absent father and brother, Luke was left to fend for himself against an abusive and emotionally needy mother. Although Woodham resented the situation, he mostly tried to please his mother when he was younger and silently protested against chores or meals only when he got older. As an awkward, overweight adolescent with few friends, Woodham’s school experiences were no better. Mary Ann insisted that he wear thick glasses, unstylish clothing, and an outdated hairstyle. Also humiliating for someone his age was his mother’s daily ritual of driving him to school and making him kiss her on the cheek—actions that provoked jokes. One time Woodham retaliated when an incest joke was directed at him and may have seriously injured his tormentor if other students had not pulled him away. His luck began to change, however, when he turned 15 and a new girl named Christina Menefee moved to town. Menefee was kind and seemed to appreciate Woodham’s gentle manners; they went on three dates over the course of one month. Mary Ann always tagged along, something the Menefee family noticed and thought odd—Mary Ann even supervised the couple once while they sat on the couch. Christy broke off their relationship, confiding to a friend that Luke had gotten too controlling and that she found it embarrassing to have his mother present during dates. The breakup devastated Woodham. In early 1997, Woodham began working at Domino’s as a pizza delivery boy, where he was praised as a courteous employee destined for manager training. He also made a friend. Donald Brooks invited him to participate in a role-playing game group to which he belonged. The group of misfit teenagers, led by an older teen named Grant Boyette, formed their own family and called themselves the “Kroth.” The boys were capable students who came across as good Christians, two important attributes in evangelical Pearl, Mississippi. Boyette was especially

Woodham, Luke

considered devout, attractive, and charismatic, but he actually had a dual identity. When with his friends, he was fixated on Hitler, Satan, and spell books. With Woodham, he cast spells on his perceived “enemies.” Woodham believed that Boyette had special powers and the pair formed a close relationship. Friends within the Kroth must have noticed escalating signs of violence, but only Brooks did anything about it. Teachers, neighbors, and fellow students were among those who may have seen indicators of a disturbed teen. Woodham wrote several suspicious in-class essays, one stating that he would go on a killing spree if he could be teacher for the day. The teacher did not report these disturbing pieces of writing. Other school officials doubtless witnessed some of the bullying that continue to plague Woodham. Still other events leading up to the matricide and school shooting should have drawn some attention, too. In the year between his breakup with Menefee and the school shooting, Woodham twice threatened to commit suicide. Each time, a classmate stopped him, but it is unclear if either of the students reported the incident to an adult. Neighbors had long ago stopped inviting the Woodham boys over to play because of their over-aggressiveness, but one neighbor witnessed Woodham and Boyette viciously beat Sparkle, the Woodham family’s Shih Tzu. In April 1997, this neighbor watched through his fence as the boys beat the dog with a stick until she could barely walk. Later, John Jr. noticed Sparkle limping and told Luke to bring her to the veterinarian. Instead, Woodham and Boyette beat her again, put her in a bag, set her on fire, and threw her into a pond while she was still alive and whimpering. Rather than show remorse for what he had done to his “dear . . . loved” family dog, Woodham was pleased. He wrote in his diary about his “first kill” and described how satisfying the experience had been. Because of the pleasure these two boys got from killing, several members of the Kroth distanced themselves from the group at this time. Brooks was among them, especially after Boyette suggested that Brooks kill his father for grounding him. Brooks reported the discussion to the authorities, who did not take the threat seriously. When Woodham told his role-playing friends how upset he was that Menefee would not date him again, Boyette suggested he kill her. Unlike Brooks, Woodham this suggestion seriously. Regardless of who masterminded the plan, Woodham was the one who carried it to its conclusion despite his arguments during his trials about the amount of influence Boyette had over him. Woodham wanted to get back at those who had hurt him, to be remembered forever, and to convince would-be bullies not to pick on others. On October 1, 1997, Woodham’s alarm clock went off at 5:00 A.M. and his violent plan began. He snuck down to the kitchen, got a butcher knife, retrieved a baseball bat from his room, and walked toward his mother’s bedroom. He had planned to kill Mary Ann while she slept, but she was in the hallway about to go for a jog. The

531

532

Woodham, Luke

attack began there and ended in her bedroom, where Woodham forced his way in and stabbed and bludgeoned his mother repeatedly. He finally suffocated her with a pillow and cleaned up both the scene and himself. In taped interviews with police, Woodham said that he had “stopped caring about anything” the night before the murders. He lied in his confession, saying that he had brought a butcher knife into his mother’s bedroom, put the pillow over her head, and stabbed her to death. In court he also asserted that demons spoke to him that morning and that he remembered getting the knife and pillow but not the actual murder. Operating under the assumption that he would die in a shootout with the police, Woodham wrote a last will and testament (which the media later labeled his “manifesto”), called Boyette, retrieved his father’s .30-.30 hunting rifle from the attic, and drove himself to Pearl High School. Woodham arrived around 8:00 A.M., just when students were milling around the commons area before class. He found friend Justin Sledge and handed him the notebooks, which included his will, to be passed along to Boyette. Sledge guessed what was about to happen and herded some close friends into the safety of the library. Woodham retrieved his rifle from his car, placed it under his trench coat, and returned to the commons area. He walked directly to Menefee and shot her and her friend Lydia Kaye Dew, killing both. Woodham then turned and calmly shot and injured seven other students. His poor eyesight and inexperience with a gun likely saved many from harm. After an 11-minute rampage, Woodham was first tackled by another boy and then fled to the parking lot. Assistant principal Joel Myrick went to his own car, retrieved a gun he had in his glove compartment, prevented Woodham from driving away, and held him until police arrived. When officers were bringing Woodham to the police station, they noticed his bandaged hand; the youth said that his injuries were incurred while killing his mother. Police sent cars to her home straight away and discovered her body. Woodham was charged with three counts of murder and seven counts of aggravated assault. He waived his right to counsel, wrote a confession, and agreed to a videotaped interview. He confessed to killing his mother in a calm, straightforward voice. However, when he spoke of his motives—that she never loved him and the various things he had to endure from her—and insisted on his sanity, he became emotional. He accurately detailed what he had done from the time he left the house until he was arrested, recalling whom he shot and how he was arrested. On October 2, Justin Sledge fanned the community’s fears by pinning a note to the door of the school that said the Kroth’s numbers were diminished but the group was still strong. He tried to defend Woodham’s actions by blaming society, and went as far as interrupting a candlelight vigil. People, among them Woodham’s neighbor who witnessed the incident with Sparkle, came forward with information that made the police think that the Kroth was a cult that believed in spells, worshipped Satan, killed animals, and planned a takeover of the school and escape

Woodham, Luke

to Cuba. By October 7, 1997, police had arrested six of Woodham’s friends on conspiracy charges; cult rumors kept both the townspeople’s fears and the media’s interest alive for months. Woodham was tried twice, first for the murder of his mother and then for the school shootings. Each case was heard in county court in an effort to obtain an unbiased jury. Experts for the defense diagnosed Woodham with borderline personality disorder; experts for the prosecution insisted he was mentally capable of standing trial. During the first trial, which ended on June 6, 1998, the jury rejected Woodham’s insanity defense and found him guilty of first-degree murder. This trial was very dramatic, with Woodham openly weeping, the power failing, and the jury giving their decision in the dark. Woodham accepted the sentence as God’s will and, by the start of the second trial the following Monday, he appeared with Bible in hand and claimed a religious conversion. Woodham’s attorneys—and his own testimony—portrayed him as a victim of the influential Boyette, but Woodham was still given a life sentence for each of the two murders, plus 20 years for each of the seven counts of aggravated assault. He again apologized to the families of those he had hurt but said he had no more tears because God had forgiven him. Woodham is currently serving out his sentence at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, where he feels remorse about starting the school shooting trend. The district attorney dropped charges against five of the boys who were arrested in conjunction with this case. The sixth boy was tried in juvenile court and his records sealed. In October 1998, Grant Boyette and Justin Sledge were charged as accessories to murder before the fact, a serious felony. Sledge was freed but Boyette, who had gotten much attention during the trial, accepted a plea bargain from the district attorney. He pleaded guilty to a lesser charge—interfering with a principal’s ability to perform his duties—and was sentenced to six months of prison-based boot camp, followed by five years of either prison or supervised probation. Sandra Gall Urban Further Reading Davis, C. A. (2003). Dare to be different: Luke Woodham. In Children who kill: Profiles of pre-teen and teenage killers (pp. 67–79). London: Allison & Busby. Fast, J. (2008). Luke Woodham: Socialization into extreme violence. In Ceremonial violence: A psychological explanation of school shootings (pp. 138–171). Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press. Roche, T., Berryman, A., Barnes, E., Barnes, S., Harbert, N., Liston, B., et al. (2001, May 28). Voices from the cell. Time, 157(21), 32–37. Retrieved January 20, 2009, from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/ 0,9171,999966,00.html?iid=perma_share

533

534

Wurst, Andrew

Wurst, Andrew Andrew Wurst murdered a science teacher, John Gillette, on the evening of April 24, 1998, at a school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania. He also wounded two classmates, Jacob Tury and Robert Zemcik, and Edrye May Boraten, a teacher who was chaperoning the dance. These acts were carried out not at school, but at Nick’s Place, a local banquet hall where the end-of-the-year dance was being held. The majority of the eighth-grade class, along with teachers serving as chaperones, was in attendance. The entire incident lasted about half an hour and ended when the owner of the banquet hall confronted Wurst with his shotgun, ordering him to put the weapon down. Wurst appeared to be in a state of confused transition. He kept Raggedy Ann dolls in his room, yet he had a girlfriend and was interested in sex. He also enjoyed reading and listening to music, although his interests in both magnified the more violent aspects of human nature. His favorite reading material was stories by well-known horror writers Stephen King and Dean Koontz that centered on violent murders and twisted psychopaths. His favorite musicians were Marilyn Manson, Korn, and Nine Inch Nails—all heavy metal bands. Marilyn Manson’s music was, by many, considered to incite violence in young people. Wurst also had heroes that most would find disturbing; he professed to people that Adolph Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte were his idols. As a result of his darker interests, his new group of friends, a much rougher crowd, nicknamed him “Satan.” This change in friends marked a change in Wurst as well. He became quieter and withdrawn, which is not how he was described by his previous acquaintances. By the last part of eighth grade, he was becoming more aggressive and narcissistic. His new friends seemed to have a significant impact on Wurst. One friend in particular seemed to spur murderous thoughts in him. The pair were often heard talking about murdering people or directly telling people that they would kill them. Wurst began bullying his classmates. One day he decided to alternately flirt with and demean a girl in his class. Justin Fletcher stood up for the girl and confronted Wurst. Fletcher’s demand that Wurst leave the girl alone proved effective; this single act further emasculated Wurst. He had also begun drinking and using marijuana by this point. Wurst did have a girlfriend for a short period of time, but his obsessive and odd behavior caused her to end the relationship. Wurst asked her to the eighth-grade graduation dance but she refused. After this rejection, he decided to ask another girl to the dance, but she laughed at him. This rejection was a massive blow to the young boy’s ego. Wurst spoke to many people about the dance. He stated that he would not be around afterward and talked about plans to kill people at the dance. Wurst was the youngest child in his family and had a close, loving relationship with his mother. As a child, he wet the bed until the age of nine. He was terrified of monsters, and his mother would have to check under the bed and in the closet before he would go to sleep. At night she would lay on the bed with Wurst, making

Wurst, Andrew

sure he was given the affection that she felt he did not get from his father. She knew that Wurst was more immature than his brothers but attributed this status to his being the baby of the family. The relationship between Andrew and his father was more complicated. Jerome Wurst was disappointed in his son, who had no interest in the family landscaping business. The business took up most of Jerome’s time, so that there was little left for his wife and children. He was a strict disciplinarian who showed little emotion. Shortly before the shooting, Andrew and his father had a fight because of a missing report card. Andrew’s grades had dropped continuously, until in the eighth grade he was receiving mostly D’s and F’s. Neither Catherine nor Jerome Wurst was aware of the psychological turmoil that their son was experiencing. Many precipitating factors contributed to Wurst’s crimes. He was having a difficult time transitioning from childhood into adolescence, indicated by the type of items he utilized to express himself. The fascination he had with horror novels and heavy metal music perpetuated his own violent thoughts and self-loathing. He found inspiration in previous school shootings such as those committed in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Fellow classmates heard Wurst joke about the killings there, yet no one took him seriously. Rejection can have an adverse affect on most people, but Wurst appears to have been especially vulnerable. Refusal by the two girls he asked to the dance not only damaged his ego, but likely spurred the already fueled rage within him. His perceived failures as a son merely added to his feelings of self-loathing. Given that Wurst had an already vulnerable state of mind, the use of drugs and alcohol could only serve to perpetuate his violent, suicidal thoughts. The eighth-grade dance was held at Nick’s Place on April 24, 1998. Wurst took his father’s .25-caliber semi-automatic pistol with him to the dance. During the dance, door prizes were handed out and announced by John Gillette. Wurst won one of the prizes, but gave it to a friend. At one point in the evening, shortly before he began shooting, Wurst indicated to one of his friends that he had the gun with him. His friend recalled Wurst talking about suicide and was worried. This friend was so concerned that he alerted other friends and gathered them on the back patio to keep an eye on Wurst. Gillette, a science teacher at the middle school, asked everyone to come inside. When he turned to go inside, Wurst shot him twice, killing him. Wurst then went inside, calling for Eric Wozniak, a student he perceived as an energy. As the students and teachers panicked, he fired two more rounds and wounded Edrye May Boraten, who also taught at the middle school. The other shot wounded Jacob Tury, a student. Justin Fletcher, who had a previous confrontation with Wurst, attempted to stand up to him again. Wurst fired at him but hit Robert Zemcik, another student, instead. Wurst then went outside where James Strand, the owner of Nick’s Place, confronted him with his shotgun, demanding that Wurst drop his weapon. Strand and two teachers took Wurst to the back of the building until police arrived. Wurst had been saying that “I died four years ago”

535

536

Wurst, Andrew

and “None of this is real.” Shortly after this time, Wurst’s mother, along with many other parents, arrived to pick up her son, but instead found her son had been arrested. Wurst was arraigned on April 25, 1998, on a charge of criminal homicide. Wurst underwent psychiatric evaluations by Robert L. Sadoff for the defense and John S. O’Brien for the prosecution, who came different conclusions. Sadoff examined Wurst in a total of four sessions and met with his parents as well. He came to the conclusion that Wurst suffered from “a major mental illness, with psychotic thinking and delusions of persecution and grandeur.” Wurst confessed to Sadoff that he had been having suicidal thoughts since he was 10 years old. He also told him that he had not planned on killing anyone other than himself at the dance and was unsure as to why he shot Gillette. At the time of the shooting, Wurst had stated, “None of this is real”; Sadoff used this statement as a staring point to inquire about Wurst’s belief system. According to Sadoff, Wurst did not consider killing Gillette to be wrong because he was not a real person. O’Brien, the other psychiatrist, felt that this was not evidence of a fixed belief system, but rather just thoughts that Wurst had. He felt that Wurst did not suffer from delusions and was capable of standing trial. Wurst was tried as an adult. He faced charges of criminal homicide, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, possessing instruments of crime, carrying a firearm without a license, and possession of a controlled substance. He eventually pleaded guilty to third-degree murder. Judge Michael M. Palmisano sentenced Wurst on September 9, 1999, to serve 30 to 60 years. He will be eligible for parole when he is 45 years old. Wurst is currently serving his sentence at the State Correctional Institute Pine Grove in Pennsylvania. Wurst appears to have been suffering from suicidal tendencies in tandem with violent thought processes. He was unable to deal with minor incidents that occurred in his daily life and had a great deal of difficulty relating to girls. Unable to live up to what his father expected of him, he felt like a disappointment. Many teenagers have a difficult time dealing with frustrations. Concerned students need to report threats of violence; they should not assume that the individual is just joking. A hotline has been set up for anyone who needs to speak to someone about such issues (1-866-STAND UP). Annika Vorhes Further Reading DeJong, W., Epstein, J., & Thomas, E. (2003). Bad things happen in good communities: The rampage shooting in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, and Its aftermath. In M. Moore, C. Petries, A. Braga, & B. McLaughlin (Eds.), Deadly lessons: Understanding lethal school violence (pp. 70–100). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Palattella, Ed. (1999, March 7). A portrait of conflict. Erie Times-News. www.goerie.com.

Y Youth Activism Too often, young people are considered suspicious for no reason other than their age. Instead of recognizing their creativity, excitement, energy, and skills, adults tend to underestimate children and teens. Young people have powerful voices, however, and throughout history have often taken the lead in making social change. Students have helped change school policies and legislation at the local, state, and federal levels. They have organized campaigns to call attention to important issues and to engage public support. They have joined and formed groups, led and followed. In one type of youth activism, young people get involved in adult-led organizations or groups. This often occurs in issues related to educational reform and governmental reform, where young people can play an important role as supporters but cannot lead because of their age. Some adult-led groups have youth branches, where teens or even children take the lead. For instance, the human rights monitor Amnesty International sponsors student groups for high school youth. An increasingly common type of youth activism is entirely student created, organized, and led. These activities tend to occur at the local level. The United States has a long history of youth activism, starting in the late 19th century when young people helped organize strikes to protest poor working conditions and low wages. In 1908, Mary Harris “Mother” Jones organized a march involving 100,000 child miners from Pennsylvania to Washington, D.C. In the 1920s and 1930s, the American Youth Congress was an active youth movement that submitted a “Bill of Youth Rights” to the U.S. Congress. It focused on economic exploitation of youth and on the draft. In the 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s, young people formed the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and many joined other civil rights movements to march, engage in sit-ins, and participate in other forms of nonviolent protest. In the 1960s and 1970s, students were at the forefront

537

538

Youth Activism

Actor Chace Crawford donates jeans for the “Teens for Jeans” campaign sponsored by DoSomething.org. Such organizations allow teens to involve themselves in the issues affecting the world today. (AP/Wide World Photos)

of the anti-war movement. In the later 1960s and 1970s, some young women joined the women’s liberation movement. The Supreme Court has upheld youth activism as constitutional as long as it does not disrupt the educational climate. In its 1969 ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines, the Court held that students were using their constitutional right to free expression when they wore black armbands to school to protest U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Today, young people are involved in many movements, including environmental, peace, animal rights, gay and lesbian rights, and more. Many important educators have praised youth activism as an important part of learning. Brazilian educator Paulo Freire, media critic Henry Giroux, historian Howard Zinn, and educators Alfie Kohn and Jonathan Kozol have all pointed out the value of allowing students a voice and a role in community and school affairs. There are a number of activist-oriented organizations that young people can join; most have websites, so it is easy to find out how to get involved. The Freechild Project focuses on providing opportunities for youths and adults to collaborate. Based in Olympia, Washington, it serves as a clearinghouse for information, projects, training, funding, and more. The organization’s website (www.freechild.org)

Youth Crime Watch of America

provides a wealth of information on creativity issues (i.e., censorship and music), economic issues, educational issues, identity issues, democracy issues, social issues, and rights issues. Under the “action” heading, it provides examples of various projects that have been launched. The “resources” heading provides links to many other articles, reports, and sites. Do Something is another resource for young people who want to become involved in an ongoing community or school project or who want to start their own such project. On its website (www.dosomething.org), young people can learn more about issues ranging from animal welfare to war, peace, and politics. Children as young as seven can apply for small grants to start or expand community projects. The organization also encourages students to form “Do Something” clubs and provides tools for organizing. Youth Noise (www.youthnnoise.com) offers similar resources. Even little children can get involved. Pennies for Peace is a campaign to help raise awareness and funds for schools across the world, in particular in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Children help by collecting pennies, and can host educational events to go with their fundraising efforts. Another great website is www.whatkidscando.org. It features many resources as well as stories about youth activism that both inform and inspire. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Do Something: www.dosomething.org Finley, L., & Stringer, E. (Eds.). (2010). Beyond “burning bras”: Feminist activism for everyone. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Free Child, www.freechild.org Halpin, M. (2004). It’s your world—if you don’t like it, change it: Activism for teenagers. New York: Simon Pulse. Jones, E., Haenfler, R., & Johnson, B. (2007). The better world handbook: Small changes that make a big difference. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Noguera, P., & Cammarota, J. (Eds.). (2006). Beyond resistance! Youth activism and community change. London: Routledge. Pennies for Peace, www.penniesforpeace.org What Kids Can Do, http://www.whatkidscando.org/ Youth Noise, www.youthnoise.com

Youth Crime Watch of America When a crime occurs, it not only affects a given victim, but also deprives many people of their opportunities to work and live in an environment free of fear.

539

540

Youth Crime Watch of America

Unfortunately, no community—whether unsuspecting or otherwise—is immune from falling prey to a variety of unlawful actions. Bearing this in mind, the Youth Crime Watch of America (YCWA) was established 30 years ago with the following purposes: safeguarding public order; preventing and detecting criminal activity; eliminating unwarranted violence; and ensuring the safety of a neighborhood’s citizenry. Modeling itself after the Youth Crime Watch of Miami–Dade County, this nonprofit organization was founded by a handful of concerned citizens in Florida in 1978. Born out of a series of heinous sexual crimes in Miami, YCWA was initially housed in a few high schools as pilot programs. Within a year, school substance abuse and theft of student personal property significantly decreased at these sites. As a result of students gradually summoning up the courage to report crimes, these programs gained community momentum, eventually leading to their statewide implementation. By 1986, YCWA initiatives had sprung up across the United States, culminating with hundreds of programs. Today the YCWA has created more than 2,000 program sites not only across this country, but throughout the world. Indeed, nearly every state has a YCWA chapter, while model programs exist on four continents. All are welcome to join a YCWA program, with an eye toward encouraging youth volunteers. Once a program is established, YCWA-trained leadership ensures that it is run effectively by providing drug and crime prevention education, creating crime reporting systems, and developing mentoring programs. In addition, YCWA programs are responsible for fostering good community and law enforcement agency relations, in part by hosting a number of events that promote youth involvement. Unlike other meaningful national and international programs, YCWA counters crime, violence, and drug use with team-oriented collaborations between adolescents and adults. Rather than being solely dependent on well-intentioned adults— namely, teachers, parents, or school administrators—YCWA programs impart the wherewithal to enthusiastic youth determined to help solve community problems. Through a hands-on method, young people become passionate participants in the conflict resolution process. YCWA programs also work closely with public schools and youth recreational centers. In doing so, advisors stress conflict resolution strategies while championing school bus safety. Beyond local leadership, each year YCWA divisions come together under the auspices of the National Crime Prevention Conference. During this four-day anticrime conference, thousands of educators, law enforcement officers, policymakers, and both youth and adult volunteers share practices and perspectives on preserving community integrity. From workshops to training seminars, this conference presents multilingual materials such as operating manuals, handbooks, DVD directives, and success stories so that attendees can start a program of their own in short order. These essential start-up elements define how to launch, maintain, and expand

Youth Crime Watch of America

programs while avoiding obstacles. The annual YCWA gathering also allows chapter counselors an opportunity to exchange contact information, thereby ensuring that newsletter mailings and follow-up sessions are ongoing. In recent years, YCWA has garnered national attention for its effectiveness in uniting communities to challenge and ultimately deter crime waves. In fact, every U.S. president since the Reagan administration has honored YCWA for its youth leadership development and proactive approach in nurturing positive communities. Equally noteworthy, YCWA has received a number of national awards, including being designated as a U.S. Department of Education Exemplary Program of Excellence. The level of recognition and sustained success of YCWA has, in turn, influenced higher education. In 2003, YCWA spearheaded College Crime Watch (CCW) programs aimed at reducing campus crime. In conjunction with building security and university police, CCW promotes safety escort services and timely campus patrols. With an emphasis on hard work, self-reliance, resourcefulness, social responsibility, self-esteem building, good citizenship, and a greater appreciation for the role of police departments, YCWA community chapters help adolescents become increasingly prepared for almost any seemingly insurmountable ordeal. Darius Echeverria Further Reading Guerra, N., & Smith, E. (Eds.). (2006). Preventing youth violence in a multicultural society. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Miller, T. (2008). School violence and primary prevention. New York: Springer. Payne, P. (2006). Youth violence prevention through asset-based community development. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishers.

541

This page intentionally left blank

Z Zero-Tolerance Laws The concept of zero tolerance originated in the military and coincided with the adoption of the law-and-order agenda in criminal justice. It stems from the “broken windows” thesis developed by George Kelling and James Wilson in the 1980s. The broken windows thesis posited that low-level problems in a community cause citizens to disengage from public spaces, thereby allowing offenders greater opportunity to commit additional and perhaps more serious offenses. The idea was that a crackdown on these low-level offenses—in other words, a zero-tolerance approach—could prevent additional acts of deviance. The notion of zero tolerance spread to schools in the 1990s, as educators, parents, and politicians became fearful of what they perceived as a surge in school violence. The first zero-tolerance laws were enacted as part of the Gun-Free School Zones Act, part of the Crime Control Act of 1990, which required districts to expel students for no less than one year if they knowingly brought a firearm into a school zone. The 1994 Gun-Free Schools Act provided funds for districts to enact policies with mandatory minimum penalties. It did not absolutely mandate suspension or expulsion for studies who committed offenses, but instead required districts to uniformly treat specific offenses, generally those involving weapons, violence, and drugs. All 50 states endorsed this legislation. Consequently, districts set about determining the specific penalties that would be assigned for given offenses. Eighty-seven percent of all schools now have zero-tolerance policies for alcohol and drugs. Ninety-one percent of schools have adopted zero-tolerance policies for bringing a weapon to school. Although many people believe these laws address only violent or drug-related behavior, that is not necessarily the case. In fact, most states have some type of “catch-all” clause that allows for the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence for nonviolent behavior, such as “persistent disobedience.”

543

544

Zero-Tolerance Laws

Supporters say zero-tolerance laws are needed to keep schools safe and drug free so that educators can do what they are supposed to—teach. Many others have expressed concern over zero-tolerance laws. Although they are supposed to ensure that all students committing a specific offense are treated the same, in actuality that has not occurred. African American males, while constituting 17% of the total U.S. student population in 2000, accounted for 33% of students suspended from school in that year. This inequity is not generally due to any proclivity to commit more serious violent incidents, but rather the result of the highly subjective “catch-all” clauses. Although the intent of zero-tolerance policies was to make schools safer by removing students who had weapons or other dangerous items, many students who have been apprehended with these items are still allowed in the school. Critics point out that this type of blanket policy often ensnares students who have no nefarious intent. In many cases, students have been suspended or expelled for silly things, as in the case of a 10-year-old who was suspended for taking a paintball gun to show-and-tell, the seventh grader who was suspended for chewing and then sharing a piece of caffeine energy gum, and the five-year-old who was suspended for wearing a fire fighter costume that contained a toy ax. Opponents maintain that no policy should be so rigid it cannot respond to these minor issues. Critics also note that policies such as zero tolerance have led educators to take a hands-off approach to discipline. Instead of discussing critical issues with students and trying to find root causes, educators are increasingly imposing sanctions with no questions asked. Worse, many students who violate zero-tolerance policies are turned over to law enforcement, creating what has been called the school-to-prison pipeline. Further, critics note that students who are suspended or expelled are far more likely to drop out of school. Although they can be accepted into other districts, this does not often happen. Thus the problem does not go away but instead becomes one for the larger community, not the school. Additionally, opponents of zero tolerance laws note that there is a scarcity of hard data supporting the contention that these policies are effective. Given these and other criticisms, the American Bar Association (ABA) has called on districts to remove their zero-tolerance policies. Alternatives might include greater use of in-school suspension, counseling, and development of alternative schools that can meet the needs of all students. Further, educators are encouraged to consider the climate in their school and to enact prevention programs that help maintain a safe, drug-free, and creative school community. Laura L. Finley Further Reading Advancement Project and the Civil Rights Project. (2000). Opportunities suspended: The devastating consequences of zero tolerance and school discipline policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Zero-Tolerance Laws

American Bar Association. (n.d.). Zero Tolerance policy. ABA. Retrieved May 11, 2010, from http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/zerotolreport.html Casella, R. (2001). At zero tolerance: Punishment, prevention and school violence. New York: Peter Lang. Cauchon, D. (1999, April 13). Zero tolerance policies lack flexibility. USA Today. Retrieved May 11, 2010, from http://www.usatoday.com/educate/ednews3.htm Grant, T. (2006, August 31). Back to school: Zero tolerance makes discipline more severe, involves the courts. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved May 11, 2010, from http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06243/717806-298.stm Skiba, R., Michael, R., Nardo, A., & Peterson, R. (2000). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Bloomington, ID: Indiana Education Policy Center.

545

This page intentionally left blank

Discussion Questions

1. What seems to be the primary motivation of high school shooters? Of campus shooters? How are the two similar? How are they different? 2. What are the key differences between high school shooters in urban areas and those in suburban or rural areas? Why do you think these differences occur? 3. Do the media generally do a good job covering school crime and violence? Campus crime and violence? In what ways can media improve? 4. Do you believe the media contribute to the problems of violence in schools and colleges? Why or why not? 5. Besides shootings, what do you consider the most pressing safety concern for schools? For campuses? 6. How big a concern is teacher- or professor-perpetrated crime and violence? 7. Identify the pros and cons of each of the interventions described in this volume, including legislation and punitive efforts, technological efforts, increased police/law enforcement and surveillance, and educational programming. 8. What seems to be the best way to prevent school crime and violence? Campus crime and violence? 9. Which organizations seem to be most effective at responding to school crime and violence? To campus crime and violence? Why? 10. Why do you believe there have been so many more school and campus shootings in the United States, compared with other countries? 11. What are the main differences between the crime and violence occurring in U.S. schools and that occurring outside the United States? 12. Which types of school and campus crime are most difficult to measure? Why? Which strategies could be used to better understand the problem?

547

548

Discussion Questions

13. Do you believe that there is a “profile” of the typical school shooter? Of students who engage in drug-related crime? In nonviolent offenses? In dating violence? In cyberoffenses? Is it useful to develop this type of profile? Why or why not? 14. Do you believe that there is a “profile” of the typical campus shooter? Of college students who engage in drug-related crime? In nonviolent offenses? In dating violence? In cyberoffenses? Is it useful to develop this type of profile? Why or why not? 15. Who is most likely to be the victim of school crime and violence? Of campus crime and violence? Why are these groups or individuals most at risk? 16. Which theoretical perspective is most useful in explaining school crime and violence? Campus crime and violence? 17. What, if any, policy changes should the United States enact to address the problems of school crime and violence? 18. Are there any interventions or policies being utilized in other countries that seem to be effective at responding to or preventing school violence? Why do they seem to be effective? Would they work in the United States? Why or why not? 19. What is youth activism? Why is it important? What are some good examples of it? 20. How important are parents in preventing and responding to school and campus crime and violence?

Extension Activities Related to School and Campus Crime and Violence

1. Host a film screening event using one or more of the films listed in the “Recommended Films About School and Campus Crime and Violence” guide. After viewing the film, lead a discussion about the issues brought up in the film. 2. Research, listen to, and analyze music that is connected to the topics of school and campus crime and violence, such as Jeremy. Discuss the lyrics, and describe how they might affect listeners. 3. Write your own songs or poems about school and campus crime and violence. Host a contest or public event in which people perform their work. 4. Read fictional works about school violence, such as those described in the “Fiction and School Violence” entry, and consider whether they accurately present the problem. Which theoretical perspective seems to connect to the situation in the book? 5. Analyze news coverage of recent incidents on campus. Does the coverage accurately present the issue? Which theoretical perspective seems to be presented? 6. Debate the pros and cons of specific policies or interventions. Debate topics could include installation of metal detectors, use of video cameras, hiring of school police officers, drug testing programs, and creation of a gay/ straight alliance, among many others. 7. Put on a mock trial for one of the shooters who was never tried. Assign people to research key persons involved in the situation and present the case before a mock jury. Alternatively, use an existing mock trial package to address issues of school and campus crime and violence. The Constitutional Rights Foundation (www.crf-usa.org) has a number of mock trials that can be purchased. 8. Interview persons from multiple generations to see how their perceptions of school and campus crime and violence have changed over time.

549

550

Extension Activities Related to School and Campus Crime and Violence

9. Write a letter to the editor of a local newspaper or a magazine that discusses school crime and violence in your community and recommends solutions. 10. Research any current legislation being considered in your state or in the federal government that is relevant to the topics of school and campus crime and violence. 11. Research any upcoming court cases that deal with school and campus crime and violence. 12. Call or write a letter to your Congressional representative seeking his or her position on how to best prevent and respond to school and campus crime and violence. 13. Search YouTube for videos related to school and campus crime and violence. 14. Get involved with a local, state, national, or international nonprofit or activist organization that helps prevent violence or provides resources to victims. Spread the word, donate your time, or host a fundraiser. 15. Join a club at your school or college that is helping prevent violence. If there isn’t one, start it! 16. Start a website, a blog, or a Facebook or MySpace page related to understanding and preventing school and campus crime and violence. 17. Find a pen pal from another country and learn more about school and campus crime and violence in other regions as you correspond. 18. Make posters to put up at school or on campus that discuss various types of school and campus crime and violence and explain where people can get help. 19. Invite guest speakers to share more about some of the topics covered in this book, such as cyberbullying, policing in schools and on campuses, and dating violence. 20. Host an open forum in your community to discuss school and campus crime and violence. 21. Invite the community to participate in a fun awareness event, such as the Clothesline Project (painting T-shirts related to ending domestic violence) or community art. 22. Read books about and discuss peace with young people. There are wonderful lists of peace-related children’s books on the Internet. 23. Lobby for your school or college to include peace education in its curriculum. 24. Make recycled art that shows the importance of a safe and drug-free community. 25. Study what seems to have worked in other countries to reduce or prevent school and campus crime and violence.

Appendix 1: Important Federal Legislation Related to School and Campus Crime and Violence

Public Schools Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972: Enacted in 1972, Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded activity or program. Most known for addressing gender disparities in extracurricular sports. Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act (1970): Made it a federal crime to traffic drugs within 1,000 feet of a school. Gun-Free Zones Act (1990): Required states to enact legislation requiring school districts to expel students caught possessing weapons in school for at least one year. Ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1995. Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (1986): Established by the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act. SDFSCA supports programs designed to prevent drug abuse and violence, involve parents and communities, and collaborate with federal, state, and local organizations. No Child Left Behind Act (2001): Amended and reauthorized the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act. NCLB authorized funds for drug abuse and violence prevention.

Campuses Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act (1997): Requires campus security to collect and report data on hate crimes on campus, including those committed on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability.

551

552

Appendix 1

Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act (1990): Requires campuses to collect, publish, and distribute an annual report detailing certain crime statistics and describing security and law enforcement policies, crime prevention activities, and procedures for reporting offenses. Buckley Amendment Clarification (1992): Clarified that records kept by campus police and security for law enforcement purposes are not confidential “education” records under federal law and, therefore, can be shared with relevant persons. Campus Sexual Assault Victims’ Bill of Rights (1992): Requires colleges and universities to afford campus sexual assault survivors certain basic rights, including assistance in notifying the police. Schools must have policies in place to address campus sexual assault. Campus Courts Disclosure Provision (1998): Ensures that the final records in cases of student disciplinary infractions related to violent crimes or non-forcible sex offenses are no longer protected from disclosure under federal student privacy laws. Victim information is still protected. Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (1998): Amends the 1990 Campus Security Act to eliminate loopholes and expand reporting requirements. Statistics for certain off-campus areas have to be disclosed, and schools with a security department must maintain a daily crime log. Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act (2000): Provides for the collection and disclosure of information about convicted, registered sex offenders either enrolled in or employed at institutions of higher education. National Campus Safety Awareness Month (2008): Establishes September as National Campus Safety Awareness Month. Higher Education Opportunity Act (2008): Adds emergency response and notification provisions to the Clery Act. Also includes protections for whistleblowers.

Appendix 2: Primary Source Documents: Sample Legislation: K–12 Public Schools

Most states enacted anti-bullying legislation in the 1990s and 2000s. Such legislation is intended to reduce bullying, to prepare prevention initiatives, and to allow school districts to better respond when bullying occurs. Florida added its statute in 2009. It is considered model legislation, as it encompasses all forms of bullying, addresses the need for training, and provides for appropriate services and response. Florida Statute 1006.147 Bullying and harassment prohibited. (1) This section may be cited as the “Jeffrey Johnston Stand Up for All Students Act.” (2) Bullying or harassment of any student or employee of a public K–12 educational institution is prohibited: (a) During any education program or activity conducted by a public K–12 educational institution; (b) During any school-related or school-sponsored program or activity or on a school bus of a public K–12 educational institution; or (c) Through the use of data or computer software that is accessed through a computer, computer system, or computer network of a public K–12 educational institution. (3) For purposes of this section: (a) “Bullying” means systematically and chronically inflicting physical hurt or psychological distress on one or more students and may involve: 1. Teasing; 2. Social exclusion; 3. Threat;

553

554

Appendix 2

4. Intimidation; 5. Stalking; 6. Physical violence; 7. Theft; 8. Sexual, religious, or racial harassment; 9. Public humiliation; or 10. Destruction of property. (b) “Harassment” means any threatening, insulting, or dehumanizing gesture, use of data or computer software, or written, verbal, or physical conduct directed against a student or school employee that: 1. Places a student or school employee in reasonable fear of harm to his or her person or damage to his or her property; 2. Has the effect of substantially interfering with a student’s educational performance, opportunities, or benefits; or 3. Has the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly operation of a school. (c) Definitions in s. 815.03 and the definition in s. 784.048(1)(d) relating to stalking are applicable to this section. (d) The definitions of “bullying” and “harassment” include: 1. Retaliation against a student or school employee by another student or school employee for asserting or alleging an act of bullying or harassment. Reporting an act of bullying or harassment that is not made in good faith is considered retaliation. 2. Perpetuation of conduct listed in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) by an individual or group with intent to demean, dehumanize, embarrass, or cause physical harm to a student or school employee by: a Incitement or coercion; b Accessing or knowingly causing or providing access to data or computer software through a computer, computer system, or computer network within the scope of the district school system; or c Acting in a manner that has an effect substantially similar to the effect of bullying or harassment. (4) By December 1, 2008, each school district shall adopt a policy prohibiting bullying and harassment of any student or employee of a public K–12 educational institution. Each school district’s policy shall be in substantial

Appendix 2

conformity with the Department of Education’s model policy mandated in subsection (5). The school district bullying and harassment policy shall afford all students the same protection regardless of their status under the law. The school district may establish separate discrimination policies that include categories of students. The school district shall involve students, parents, teachers, administrators, school staff, school volunteers, community representatives, and local law enforcement agencies in the process of adopting the policy. The school district policy must be implemented in a manner that is ongoing throughout the school year and integrated with a school’s curriculum, a school’s discipline policies, and other violence prevention efforts. The school district policy must contain, at a minimum, the following components: (a) A statement prohibiting bullying and harassment. (b) A definition of bullying and a definition of harassment that include the definitions listed in this section. (c) A description of the type of behavior expected from each student and employee of a public K–12 educational institution. (d) The consequences for a student or employee of a public K–12 educational institution who commits an act of bullying or harassment. (e) The consequences for a student or employee of a public K–12 educational institution who is found to have wrongfully and intentionally accused another of an act of bullying or harassment. (f) A procedure for reporting an act of bullying or harassment, including provisions that permit a person to anonymously report such an act. However, this paragraph does not permit formal disciplinary action to be based solely on an anonymous report. (g) A procedure for the prompt investigation of a report of bullying or harassment and the persons responsible for the investigation. The investigation of a reported act of bullying or harassment is deemed to be a school-related activity and begins with a report of such an act. Incidents that require a reasonable investigation when reported to appropriate school authorities shall include alleged incidents of bullying or harassment allegedly committed against a child while the child is en route to school aboard a school bus or at a school bus stop. (h) A process to investigate whether a reported act of bullying or harassment is within the scope of the district school system and, if not, a process for referral of such an act to the appropriate jurisdiction.

555

556

Appendix 2

(i) A procedure for providing immediate notification to the parents of a victim of bullying or harassment and the parents of the perpetrator of an act of bullying or harassment, as well as notification to all local agencies where criminal charges may be pursued against the perpetrator. (j) A procedure to refer victims and perpetrators of bullying or harassment for counseling. (k) A procedure for including incidents of bullying or harassment in the school’s report of data concerning school safety and discipline required under s.1006.09(6). The report must include each incident of bullying or harassment and the resulting consequences, including discipline and referrals. The report must include in a separate section each reported incident of bullying or harassment that does not meet the criteria of a prohibited act under this section with recommendations regarding such incidents. The Department of Education shall aggregate information contained in the reports. (l) A procedure for providing instruction to students, parents, teachers, school administrators, counseling staff, and school volunteers on identifying, preventing, and responding to bullying or harassment. (m) A procedure for regularly reporting to a victim’s parents the actions taken to protect the victim. (n) A procedure for publicizing the policy, which must include its publication in the code of student conduct required under s.1006.07(2) and in all employee handbooks. (5) To assist school districts in developing policies prohibiting bullying and harassment, the Department of Education shall develop a model policy that shall be provided to school districts no later than October 1, 2008. (6) A school employee, school volunteer, student, or parent who promptly reports in good faith an act of bullying or harassment to the appropriate school official designated in the school district’s policy and who makes this report in compliance with the procedures set forth in the policy is immune from a cause of action for damages arising out of the reporting itself or any failure to remedy the reported incident. (7) (a) The physical location or time of access of a computer-related incident cannot be raised as a defense in any disciplinary action initiated under this section. (b) This section does not apply to any person who uses data or computer software that is accessed through a computer, computer system, or computer network when acting within the scope of his or her lawful

Appendix 2

employment or investigating a violation of this section in accordance with school district policy. (8) Distribution of safe schools funds to a school district provided in the 2009– 2010 General Appropriations Act is contingent upon and payable to the school district upon the Department of Education’s approval of the school district’s bullying and harassment policy. The department’s approval of each school district’s bullying and harassment policy shall be granted upon certification by the department that the school district’s policy has been submitted to the department and is in substantial conformity with the department’s model bullying and harassment policy as mandated in subsection (5). Distribution of safe schools funds provided to a school district in fiscal year 2010-2011 and thereafter shall be contingent upon and payable to the school district upon the school district’s compliance with all reporting procedures contained in this section. (9) On or before January 1 of each year, the Commissioner of Education shall report to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives on the implementation of this section. The report shall include data collected pursuant to paragraph (4)(k). (10) Nothing in this section shall be construed to abridge the rights of students or school employees that are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Source: Document available at http://faptflorida.org/MidYearHandouts09/Safe% 20Schools%2020090302%20Law%20Against%20Bullying_Rumenik.pdf §§§§ Michigan is one of the few states that, as of November 2010, still did not have specific anti-bullying legislation. The state does have an anti-bullying policy, but critics note that policies are less binding than legislation. Below is the verbiage from a proposed bill that has yet to be enacted. House Bill No. 4580 March 12, 2009, Introduced by Reps. Byrnes, Cushingberry, Melton, Paul Scott, Rick Jones, Warren, Scripps, Schuitmaker, Miller, Switalski, Geiss, Kennedy, Liss, Bauer, Lisa Brown, Neumann, Barnett, Haase, Mayes, Roberts, Bledsoe, Valentine, Donigan, Polidori, Lipton, Gregory, Meadows, Gonzales, Johnson and Lindberg and referred to the Committee on Education. A bill to amend 1976 PA 451, entitled “The revised school code,”

557

558

Appendix 2

MCL 380.1 to 380.1852) by adding section 1310b. The people of the state of Michigan enact: Sec. 1310b. (1) Not later than 6 months after the effective date of this section, the board of a school district or intermediate school district or board of directors of a public school academy shall adopt and implement a policy prohibiting bullying or harassment at school, as defined in this section. The legislature encourages a board or board of directors to include in its policy provisions concerning education, parental involvement, reporting, investigation, and intervention. Before adopting the policy, the board or board of directors shall hold at least 1 public hearing on the proposed policy. This public hearing may be held as part of a regular board meeting. Not later than 30 days after adopting the policy, the board or board of directors shall submit a copy of its policy to the department. (2) Not later than 1 year after the deadline under subsection (1) for districts and public school academies to submit copies of their policies to the department, the department shall submit a report to the senate and house standing committees on education summarizing the status of the implementation of policies under this section. (3) As used in this section: (a) “At school” means in a classroom, elsewhere on school premises, on a school bus or other school-related vehicle, or at a school-sponsored activity or event whether or not it is held on school premises. “At school” includes conduct using a telecommunications access device or telecommunications service provider that occurs off school premises if the telecommunications access device or the telecommunications service provider is owned by or under the control of the school district or public school academy. (b) “Bullying or harassment” means abuse of a pupil by 1 or more other pupils in any form. The term includes, but is not limited to, conduct that meets any of the following: (i) Substantially interferes with educational opportunities, benefits, or programs of 1 or more pupils. (ii) Adversely affects the ability of a pupil to participate in or benefit from the school district’s or public school’s educational programs or activities by placing the pupil in reasonable fear of physical harm or by causing emotional distress. (iii) Is reasonably perceived to be motivated by animus or by an actual or perceived characteristic.

Appendix 2

(c) “Telecommunications access device” and “telecommunications service provider” mean those terms as defined in section 219a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.219a. (4) This section shall be known as “Matt’s Safe School Law.” Source: Document available at http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009 -2010/billengrossed/House/htm/2009-HEBH-4580.htm §§§§ Some states have enacted specific legislation to address dating violence and sexual assault in schools. Georgia enacted this legislation in order to coordinate prevention efforts. Bottom of Form O.C.G.A. § 20-2-314 Georgia Code Copyright 2010 by The State of Georgia All rights reserved. *** Current through the 2010 Regular Session *** Title 20. Education Chapter 2. Elementary and Secondary Education Article 6. Quality Basic Education Part 14. Other Educational Programs O.C.G.A. § 20-2-314 (2010) § 20-2-314. Development of rape prevention, personal safety education, and teen dating violence prevention programs The State Board of Education shall develop, with input from appropriate experts, such as rape crisis centers and family violence shelters, a rape prevention and personal safety education program and a program for preventing teen dating violence for grade eight through grade 12 which are consistent with the core curriculum provided for in Code Section 20-2-140. Local boards may implement such programs at any time and for any grade level local boards find appropriate, and the state board shall encourage the implementation of such programs. In addition, the state board

559

560

Appendix 2

shall make information regarding such programs available to the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. HISTORY: Code 1981, § 20-2-314, enacted by Ga. L. 2000, p. 163, § 1; Ga. L. 2003, p. 915, § 1. Document available at http://www.lexis-nexis.com/hottopics/gacode/default.asp §§§§ Rhode Island enacted the Lindsay Ann Burke Act to coordinate dating violence prevention in schools. It was the first of its kind in the United States. Chapter 490 2007 — S 0875 Substitute B Enacted 07/03/07 An Act Relating to Education—Dating Violence: “Lindsay Ann Burke Act” Introduced by: Senators Lanzi, Paiva-Weed, Perry, Gallo, and Goodwin Date Introduced: March 20, 2007 It is enacted by the General Assembly as follows: Section 1. Title 16 of the General Laws entitled “Education” is hereby amended by adding thereto the following chapter: Chapter 85 Lindsay Ann Burke Act 16-85-1. Short title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Lindsay Ann Burke Act.” 16-85-2. Legislative findings. The general assembly hereby finds, determines and declares that when a student is a victim of dating violence, his or her academic life suffers and his or her safety at school is jeopardized. The general assembly therefore finds that a policy to create an environment free of dating violence shall be a part of each school district. It is the intent of the general assembly to enact legislation that would require each school district to establish a policy for responding to incidents of dating violence and to provide dating violence education to students, parents, staff, faculty and administrators, in order to prevent dating violence and to address incidents involving dating violence. All students have a right to work and study in a safe, supportive environment that is free from harassment, intimidation and violence.

Appendix 2

SECTION 2. Chapter 16-21 of the General Laws entitled “Health and Safety of Pupils” is hereby amended by adding thereto the following section: 16-21-30. Dating Violence Policy. (a) As used in this section: (1) ”Dating violence” means a pattern of behavior where one person uses threats of, or actually uses, physical, sexual, verbal or emotional abuse to control his or her dating partner. (2) “Dating partner” means any person, regardless of gender, involved in an intimate relationship with another primarily characterized by the expectation of affectionate involvement whether casual, serious or long-term. (3) “At school” means in a classroom, on or immediately adjacent to school premises, on a school bus or other school-related vehicle, at an official school bus stop, or at any school-sponsored activity or event whether or not it is on school grounds. (b) The department of education shall develop a model dating violence policy to assist school districts in developing policies for dating violence reporting and response. The model policy shall be issued on or before April 1, 2008. (c) Each school district shall establish a specific policy to address incidents of dating violence involving students at school by December 1, 2008. Each school district shall verify compliance with the department of education on an annual basis through the annual school health report. (1) Such policy shall include, but not be limited to, a statement that dating violence will not be tolerated, dating violence reporting procedures, guidelines to responding to at school incidents of dating violence and discipline procedures specific to such incidents. (2) To ensure notice of the school district’s dating violence policy, the policy shall be published in any school district policy and handbook that sets forth the comprehensive rules, procedures and standards of conduct for students at school. (d) Each school district shall provide dating violence training to all administrators, teachers, nurses and mental health staff at the middle and high school levels. Upon the recommendation of the administrator, other staff may be included or may attend the training on a volunteer basis. The dating violence training shall include, but not be limited to, basic principles of dating violence, warning signs of dating violence and the school district’s dating violence policy, to ensure that they are able to appropriately respond to incidents of dating violence at school. Thereafter, this training shall be

561

562

Appendix 2

provided yearly to all newly hired staff deemed appropriate to receive the training by the school’s administration. (e) Each school district shall inform the students’ parents or legal guardians of the school district’s dating violence policy. If requested, the school district shall provide the parents or legal guardians with the school district’s dating violence policy and relevant information. It is strongly recommended that the school district provide parent awareness training. (f) This section does not prevent a victim from seeking redress under any other available law, either civil or criminal. This section does not create or alter any tort liability. SECTION 3. Chapter 16-22 of the General Laws entitled Curriculum” is hereby amended by adding thereto the following section: 16-22-24. Dating Violence Education. (a) Each school district shall incorporate dating violence education that is ageappropriate into the annual health curriculum framework for students in grades seven (7) through twelve (12). (1) Dating violence education shall include, but not be limited to, defining dating violence, recognizing dating violence warning signs and characteristics of healthy relationships. Additionally, students shall be provided with the school district’s dating violence policy as provided in subsection 16-21-30(c). (2) For the purposes of this section: (i) “Dating violence” means a pattern of behavior where one person uses threats of, or actually uses, physical, sexual, verbal or emotional abuse to control his or her dating partner. (ii) “Dating partner” means any person involved in an intimate association with another primarily characterized by the expectation of affectionate involvement whether casual, serious or long-term. (iii) “At school” means in a classroom, on or immediately adjacent to such school premises, on a school bus or other school-related vehicle, at an official school bus stop, or at any school sponsored activity or event whether or not it is on school grounds. (3) To assist school districts in developing a dating violence education program, the department of education shall review and approve the grade level topics relating to dating violence and healthy

Appendix 2

relationships in the “health literacy for all students: the Rhode Island health education framework.” (4) The provisions of this section shall be amended in the health education curriculum sections of the Rhode Island rules and regulations for school health programs, R16-21-SCHO, and the Rhode Island basic education program at their next revisions. (b) Upon written request to the school principal, a parent or legal guardian of a pupil less than eighteen (18) years of age, within a reasonable period of time after the request is made, shall be permitted to examine the dating violence education program instruction materials at the school in which his or her child is enrolled. SECTION 4. This act shall take effect upon passage. LC01262/SUB B Source: Document available at http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/PublicLaws/law07/ law07490.htm §§§§ All states have enacted legislation related to school safety, largely as a response to the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Community Act of 1994. Following is the wording of Texas’s statute, which addresses when, how, and under which circumstances students can be removed from schools Education Code Title 2. Public Education Subtitle G. Safe Schools Chapter 37. Discipline; Law and Order Subchapter A. Alternative Settings for Behavior Management Sec. 37.001. Student Code of Conduct. (a) The board of trustees of an independent school district shall, with the advice of its district-level committee established under Subchapter F, Chapter 11, adopt a student code of conduct for the district. The student code of conduct must be posted and prominently displayed at each school campus or made available for review at the office of the campus principal. In addition to establishing standards for student conduct, the student code of conduct must: (1) specify the circumstances, in accordance with this subchapter, under which a student may be removed from a classroom, campus, or disciplinary alternative education program;

563

564

Appendix 2

(2) specify conditions that authorize or require a principal or other appropriate administrator to transfer a student to a disciplinary alternative education program; (3) outline conditions under which a student may be suspended as provided by Section 37.005 or expelled as provided by Section 37.007; (4) specify that consideration will be given, as a factor in each decision concerning suspension, removal to a disciplinary alternative education program, expulsion, or placement in a juvenile justice alternative education program, regardless of whether the decision concerns a mandatory or discretionary action, to: (A) self-defense; (B) intent or lack of intent at the time the student engaged in the conduct; (C) a student’s disciplinary history; or (D) a disability that substantially impairs the student’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the student’s conduct; (5) provide guidelines for setting the length of a term of: (A) a removal under Section 37.006; and (B) an expulsion under Section 37.007; (6) address the notification of a student’s parent or guardian of a violation of the student code of conduct committed by the student that results in suspension, removal to a disciplinary alternative education program, or expulsion; (7) prohibit bullying, harassment, and making hit lists and ensure that district employees enforce those prohibitions; and (8) provide, as appropriate for students at each grade level, methods, including options, for: (A) managing students in the classroom and on school grounds; (B) disciplining students; and (C) preventing and intervening in student discipline problems, including bullying, harassment, and making hit lists. (b) In this section: (1) “Harassment” means threatening to cause harm or bodily injury to another student, engaging in sexually intimidating conduct, causing physical damage to the property of another student, subjecting another student to physical confinement or restraint, or maliciously

Appendix 2

taking any action that substantially harms another student’s physical or emotional health or safety. (2) “Hit list” means a list of people targeted to be harmed, using: (A) a firearm, as defined by Section 46.01(3), Penal Code; (B) a knife, as defined by Section 46.01(7), Penal Code; or (C) any other object to be used with intent to cause bodily harm. (b-1) The methods adopted under Subsection (a)(8) must provide that a student who is enrolled in a special education program under Subchapter A, Chapter 29, may not be disciplined for conduct prohibited in accordance with Subsection (a)(7) until an admission, review, and dismissal committee meeting has been held to review the conduct. (c) Once the student code of conduct is promulgated, any change or amendment must be approved by the board of trustees. (d) Each school year, a school district shall provide parents notice of and information regarding the student code of conduct. (e) Except as provided by Section 37.007(e), this subchapter does not require the student code of conduct to specify a minimum term of a removal under Section 37.006 or an expulsion under Section 37.007. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1015, Sec. 2, eff. June 19, 1997; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1055, Sec. 4, 30, eff. June 20, 2003. Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 504, Sec. 1, eff. June 17, 2005. Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 920, Sec. 3, eff. June 18, 2005. Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 897, Sec. 1, eff. June 19, 2009. Sec. 37.002. Removal By Teacher. (a) A teacher may send a student to the principal’s office to maintain effective discipline in the classroom. The principal shall respond by employing appropriate discipline management techniques consistent with the student code of conduct adopted under Section 37.001. (b) A teacher may remove from class a student: (1) who has been documented by the teacher to repeatedly interfere with the teacher’s ability to communicate effectively with the students in the class or with the ability of the student’s classmates to learn; or (2) whose behavior the teacher determines is so unruly, disruptive, or abusive that it seriously interferes with the teacher’s ability to

565

566

Appendix 2

communicate effectively with the students in the class or with the ability of the student’s classmates to learn. (c) If a teacher removes a student from class under Subsection (b), the principal may place the student into another appropriate classroom, into in-school suspension, or into a disciplinary alternative education program as provided by Section 37.008. The principal may not return the student to that teacher’s class without the teacher’s consent unless the committee established under Section 37.003 determines that such placement is the best or only alternative available. The terms of the removal may prohibit the student from attending or participating in school-sponsored or schoolrelated activity. (d) A teacher shall remove from class and send to the principal for placement in a disciplinary alternative education program or for expulsion, as appropriate, a student who engages in conduct described under Section 37.006 or 37.007. The student may not be returned to that teacher’s class without the teacher’s consent unless the committee established under Section 37.003 determines that such placement is the best or only alternative available. If the teacher removed the student from class because the student has engaged in the elements of any offense listed in Section 37.006(a)(2)(B) or Section 37.007(a)(2)(A) or (b)(2)(C) against the teacher, the student may not be returned to the teacher’s class without the teacher’s consent. The teacher may not be coerced to consent. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1055, Sec. 5, eff. June 20, 2003. Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 504, Sec. 2, eff. June 17, 2005. Sec. 37.0021. Use of Confinement, Restraint, Seclusion, and Time-Out. (a) It is the policy of this state to treat with dignity and respect all students, including students with disabilities who receive special education services under Subchapter A, Chapter 29. A student with a disability who receives special education services under Subchapter A, Chapter 29, may not be confined in a locked box, locked closet, or other specially designed locked space as either a discipline management practice or a behavior management technique. (b) In this section: (1) “Restraint” means the use of physical force or a mechanical device to significantly restrict the free movement of all or a portion of a student’s body.

Appendix 2

(2) “Seclusion” means a behavior management technique in which a student is confined in a locked box, locked closet, or locked room that: (A) is designed solely to seclude a person; and (B) contains less than 50 square feet of space. (3) “Time-out” means a behavior management technique in which, to provide a student with an opportunity to regain self-control, the student is separated from other students for a limited period in a setting: (A) that is not locked; and (B) from which the exit is not physically blocked by furniture, a closed door held shut from the outside, or another inanimate object. (c) A school district employee or volunteer or an independent contractor of a district may not place a student in seclusion. This subsection does not apply to the use of seclusion in a court-ordered placement, other than a placement in an educational program of a school district, or in a placement or facility to which the following law, rules, or regulations apply: (1) the Children’s Health Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-310, any subsequent amendments to that Act, any regulations adopted under that Act, or any subsequent amendments to those regulations; (2) 40 T.A.C. Sections 720.1001-720.1013; or (3) 25 T.A.C. Section 412.308(e). (d) The commissioner by rule shall adopt procedures for the use of restraint and time-out by a school district employee or volunteer or an independent contractor of a district in the case of a student with a disability receiving special education services under Subchapter A, Chapter 29. A procedure adopted under this subsection must: (1) be consistent with: (A) professionally accepted practices and standards of student discipline and techniques for behavior management; and (B) relevant health and safety standards; and (2) identify any discipline management practice or behavior management technique that requires a district employee or volunteer or an independent contractor of a district to be trained before using that practice or technique. (e) In the case of a conflict between a rule adopted under Subsection (d) and a rule adopted under Subchapter A, Chapter 29, the rule adopted under Subsection (d) controls.

567

568

Appendix 2

(f) For purposes of this subsection, “weapon” includes any weapon described under Section 37.007(a)(1). This section does not prevent a student’s locked, unattended confinement in an emergency situation while awaiting the arrival of law enforcement personnel if: (1) the student possesses a weapon; and (2) the confinement is necessary to prevent the student from causing bodily harm to the student or another person. (g) This section and any rules or procedures adopted under this section do not apply to: (1) a peace officer while performing law enforcement duties; (2) juvenile probation, detention, or corrections personnel; or (3) an educational services provider with whom a student is placed by a judicial authority, unless the services are provided in an educational program of a school district. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 212, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1055, Sec. 6, eff. June 20, 2003. Sec. 37.003. Placement Review Committee. (a) Each school shall establish a three-member committee to determine placement of a student when a teacher refuses the return of a student to the teacher’s class and make recommendations to the district regarding readmission of expelled students. Members shall be appointed as follows: (1) the campus faculty shall choose two teachers to serve as members and one teacher to serve as an alternate member; and (2) the principal shall choose one member from the professional staff of a campus. (b) The teacher refusing to readmit the student may not serve on the committee. (c) The committee’s placement determination regarding a student with a disability who receives special education services under Subchapter A, Chapter 29, is subject to the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. Section 1400 et seq.) and federal regulations, state statutes, and agency requirements necessary to carry out federal law or regulations or state law relating to special education. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1055, Sec. 7, eff. June 20, 2003.

Appendix 2

Sec. 37.004. Placement of Students with Disabilities. (a) The placement of a student with a disability who receives special education services may be made only by a duly constituted admission, review, and dismissal committee. (b) Any disciplinary action regarding a student with a disability who receives special education services that would constitute a change in placement under federal law may be taken only after the student’s admission, review, and dismissal committee conducts a manifestation determination review under 20 U.S.C. Section 1415(k)(4) and its subsequent amendments. Any disciplinary action regarding the student shall be determined in accordance with federal law and regulations, including laws or regulations requiring the provision of: (1) functional behavioral assessments; (2) positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports; (3) behavioral intervention plans; and (4) the manifestation determination review. (c) A student with a disability who receives special education services may not be placed in alternative education programs solely for educational purposes. (d) A teacher in an alternative education program under Section 37.008 who has a special education assignment must hold an appropriate certificate or permit for that assignment. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 767, Sec. 6, eff. June 13, 2001; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1225, Sec. 1, eff. June 15, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 435, Sec. 1, eff. June 20, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1276, Sec. 6.006, eff. Sept. 1, 2003. Sec. 37.005. Suspension. (a) The principal or other appropriate administrator may suspend a student who engages in conduct identified in the student code of conduct adopted under Section 37.001 as conduct for which a student may be suspended. (b) A suspension under this section may not exceed three school days. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1055, Sec. 8, eff. June 20, 2003.

569

570

Appendix 2

Sec. 37.0051. Placement of Students Committing Sexual Assault Against Another Student. (a) As provided by Section 25.0341(b)(2), a student shall be removed from class and placed in a disciplinary alternative education program under Section 37.008 or a juvenile justice alternative education program under Section 37.011. (b) A limitation imposed by this subchapter on the length of a placement in a disciplinary alternative education program or a juvenile justice alternative education program does not apply to a placement under this section. Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 997, Sec. 2, eff. June 18, 2005. Sec. 37.006. Removal for Certain Conduct. (a) A student shall be removed from class and placed in a disciplinary alternative education program as provided by Section 37.008 if the student: (1) engages in conduct involving a public school that contains the elements of the offense of false alarm or report under Section 42.06, Penal Code, or terroristic threat under Section 22.07, Penal Code; or (2) commits the following on or within 300 feet of school property, as measured from any point on the school’s real property boundary line, or while attending a school-sponsored or school-related activity on or off of school property: (A) engages in conduct punishable as a felony; (B) engages in conduct that contains the elements of the offense of assault under Section 22.01(a)(1), Penal Code; (C) sells, gives, or delivers to another person or possesses or uses or is under the influence of: (i) marihuana or a controlled substance, as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, or by 21 U.S.C. Section 801 et seq.; or (ii) a dangerous drug, as defined by Chapter 483, Health and Safety Code; (D) sells, gives, or delivers to another person an alcoholic beverage, as defined by Section 1.04, Alcoholic Beverage Code, commits a serious act or offense while under the influence of alcohol, or possesses, uses, or is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage; (E) engages in conduct that contains the elements of an offense relating to an abusable volatile chemical under Sections 485.031 through 485.034, Health and Safety Code; or

Appendix 2

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(F) engages in conduct that contains the elements of the offense of public lewdness under Section 21.07, Penal Code, or indecent exposure under Section 21.08, Penal Code. Except as provided by Section 37.007(d), a student shall be removed from class and placed in a disciplinary alternative education program under Section 37.008 if the student engages in conduct on or off of school property that contains the elements of the offense of retaliation under Section 36.06, Penal Code, against any school employee. In addition to Subsections (a) and (b), a student shall be removed from class and placed in a disciplinary alternative education program under Section 37.008 based on conduct occurring off campus and while the student is not in attendance at a school-sponsored or school-related activity if: (1) the student receives deferred prosecution under Section 53.03, Family Code, for conduct defined as a felony offense in Title 5, Penal Code; (2) a court or jury finds that the student has engaged in delinquent conduct under Section 54.03, Family Code, for conduct defined as a felony offense in Title 5, Penal Code; or (3) the superintendent or the superintendent’s designee has a reasonable belief that the student has engaged in a conduct defined as a felony offense in Title 5, Penal Code. In addition to Subsections (a), (b), and (c), a student may be removed from class and placed in a disciplinary alternative education program under Section 37.008 based on conduct occurring off campus and while the student is not in attendance at a school-sponsored or school-related activity if: (1) the superintendent or the superintendent’s designee has a reasonable belief that the student has engaged in conduct defined as a felony offense other than those defined in Title 5, Penal Code; and (2) the continued presence of the student in the regular classroom threatens the safety of other students or teachers or will be detrimental to the educational process. In determining whether there is a reasonable belief that a student has engaged in conduct defined as a felony offense by the Penal Code, the superintendent or the superintendent’s designee may consider all available information, including the information furnished under Article 15.27, Code of Criminal Procedure. Subject to Section 37.007(e), a student who is younger than 10 years of age shall be removed from class and placed in a disciplinary alternative education program under Section 37.008 if the student engages in conduct

571

572

Appendix 2

(g) (h)

(i)

(j)

(k) (l)

described by Section 37.007. An elementary school student may not be placed in a disciplinary alternative education program with any other student who is not an elementary school student. The terms of a placement under this section must prohibit the student from attending or participating in a school-sponsored or school-related activity. On receipt of notice under Article 15.27(g), Code of Criminal Procedure, the superintendent or the superintendent’s designee shall review the student’s placement in the disciplinary alternative education program. The student may not be returned to the regular classroom pending the review. The superintendent or the superintendent’s designee shall schedule a review of the student’s placement with the student’s parent or guardian not later than the third class day after the superintendent or superintendent’s designee receives notice from the office or official designated by the court. After reviewing the notice and receiving information from the student’s parent or guardian, the superintendent or the superintendent’s designee may continue the student’s placement in the disciplinary alternative education program if there is reason to believe that the presence of the student in the regular classroom threatens the safety of other students or teachers. The student or the student’s parent or guardian may appeal the superintendent’s decision under Subsection (h) to the board of trustees. The student may not be returned to the regular classroom pending the appeal. The board shall, at the next scheduled meeting, review the notice provided under Article 15.27(g), Code of Criminal Procedure, and receive information from the student, the student’s parent or guardian, and the superintendent or superintendent’s designee and confirm or reverse the decision under Subsection (h). The board shall make a record of the proceedings. If the board confirms the decision of the superintendent or superintendent’s designee, the board shall inform the student and the student’s parent or guardian of the right to appeal to the commissioner under Subsection (j). Notwithstanding Section 7.057(e), the decision of the board of trustees under Subsection (i) may be appealed to the commissioner as provided by Sections 7.057(b), (c), (d), and (f). The student may not be returned to the regular classroom pending the appeal. Subsections (h), (i), and (j) do not apply to placements made in accordance with Subsection (a). Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, other than Section 37.007(e)(2), a student who is younger than six years of age may not be removed from class and placed in a disciplinary alternative education program.

Appendix 2

(m) Removal to a disciplinary alternative education program under Subsection (a) is not required if the student is expelled under Section 37.007 for the same conduct for which removal would be required. (n) A principal or other appropriate administrator may but is not required to remove a student to a disciplinary alternative education program for offcampus conduct for which removal is required under this section if the principal or other appropriate administrator does not have knowledge of the conduct before the first anniversary of the date the conduct occurred. (o) In addition to any notice required under Article 15.27, Code of Criminal Procedure, a principal or a principal’s designee shall inform each educator who has responsibility for, or is under the direction and supervision of an educator who has responsibility for, the instruction of a student who has engaged in any violation listed in this section of the student’s misconduct. Each educator shall keep the information received under this subsection confidential from any person not entitled to the information under this subsection, except that the educator may share the information with the student’s parent or guardian as provided for by state or federal law. The State Board for Educator Certification may revoke or suspend the certification of an educator who intentionally violates this subsection. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1015, Sec. 3, eff. June 19, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 396, Sec. 2.15, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 486, Sec. 1, eff. June 11, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1055, Sec. 9, eff. June 20, 2003. Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 504, Sec. 3, eff. June 17, 2005. Sec. 37.0061. Funding for Alternative Education Services in Juvenile Residential Facilities. A school district that provides education services to pre-adjudicated and postadjudicated students who are confined by court order in a juvenile residential facility operated by a juvenile board is entitled to count such students in the district’s average daily attendance for purposes of receipt of state funds under the Foundation School Program. If the district has a wealth per student greater than the guaranteed wealth level but less than the equalized wealth level, the district in which the student is enrolled on the date a court orders the student to be confined to a juvenile residential facility shall transfer to the district providing education services an amount equal to the difference between the average Foundation School Program costs per student of the district providing education services and

573

574

Appendix 2

the sum of the state aid and the money from the available school fund received by the district that is attributable to the student for the portion of the school year for which the district provides education services to the student. Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1015, Sec. 4, eff. June 19, 1997. Sec. 37.0062. Instructional Requirements for Alternative Education Services In Juvenile Residential Facilities. (a) The commissioner shall determine the instructional requirements for education services provided by a school district or open-enrollment charter school in a pre-adjudication secure detention facility or a postadjudication secure correctional facility operated by a juvenile board or a post-adjudication secure correctional facility operated under contract with the Texas Youth Commission, including requirements relating to: (1) the length of the school day; (2) the number of days of instruction provided to students each school year; and (3) the curriculum of the educational program. (b) The commissioner shall coordinate with: (1) the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission in determining the instructional requirements for education services provided under Subsection (a) in a pre-adjudication secure detention facility or a postadjudication secure correctional facility operated by a juvenile board; and (2) the Texas Youth Commission in determining the instructional requirements for education services provided under Subsection (a) in a post-adjudication secure correctional facility operated under contract with the Texas Youth Commission. (c) The commissioner shall adopt rules necessary to administer this section. The rules must ensure that: (1) a student who receives education services in a pre-adjudication secure detention facility described by this section is offered courses that enable the student to maintain progress toward completing high school graduation requirements; and (2) a student who receives education services in a post-adjudication secure correctional facility described by this section is offered, at a minimum, the courses necessary to enable the student to complete high school graduation requirements.

Appendix 2

(d) The Texas Juvenile Probation Commission or the Texas Youth Commission, as applicable, shall coordinate with the commissioner in establishing standards for: (1) ensuring security in the provision of education services in the facilities; and (2) providing children in the custody of the facilities access to education services. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 615, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007. Sec. 37.007. Expulsion for Serious Offenses. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (k), a student shall be expelled from a school if the student, on school property or while attending a schoolsponsored or school-related activity on or off of school property: (1) uses, exhibits, or possesses: (A) a firearm as defined by Section 46.01(3), Penal Code; (B) an illegal knife as defined by Section 46.01(6), Penal Code, or by local policy; (C) a club as defined by Section 46.01(1), Penal Code; or (D) a weapon listed as a prohibited weapon under Section 46.05, Penal Code; (2) engages in conduct that contains the elements of the offense of: (A) aggravated assault under Section 22.02, Penal Code, sexual assault under Section 22.011, Penal Code, or aggravated sexual assault under Section 22.021, Penal Code; (B) arson under Section 28.02, Penal Code; (C) murder under Section 19.02, Penal Code, capital murder under Section 19.03, Penal Code, or criminal attempt, under Section 15.01, Penal Code, to commit murder or capital murder; (D) indecency with a child under Section 21.11, Penal Code; (E) aggravated kidnapping under Section 20.04, Penal Code; (F) aggravated robbery under Section 29.03, Penal Code; (G) manslaughter under Section 19.04, Penal Code; (H) criminally negligent homicide under Section 19.05, Penal Code; or (I) continuous sexual abuse of young child or children under Section 21.02, Penal Code; or

575

576

Appendix 2

(3) engages in conduct specified by Section 37.006(a)(2)(C) or (D), if the conduct is punishable as a felony. (b) A student may be expelled if the student: (1) engages in conduct involving a public school that contains the elements of the offense of false alarm or report under Section 42.06, Penal Code, or terroristic threat under Section 22.07, Penal Code; (2) while on or within 300 feet of school property, as measured from any point on the school’s real property boundary line, or while attending a school-sponsored or school-related activity on or off of school property: (A) sells, gives, or delivers to another person or possesses, uses, or is under the influence of any amount of: (i) marihuana or a controlled substance, as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, or by 21 U.S.C. Section 801 et seq.; (ii) a dangerous drug, as defined by Chapter 483, Health and Safety Code; or (iii) an alcoholic beverage, as defined by Section 1.04, Alcoholic Beverage Code; (B) engages in conduct that contains the elements of an offense relating to an abusable volatile chemical under Sections 485.031 through 485.034, Health and Safety Code; (C) engages in conduct that contains the elements of an offense under Section 22.01(a)(1), Penal Code, against a school district employee or a volunteer as defined by Section 22.053; or (D) engages in conduct that contains the elements of the offense of deadly conduct under Section 22.05, Penal Code; (3) subject to Subsection (d), while within 300 feet of school property, as measured from any point on the school’s real property boundary line: (A) engages in conduct specified by Subsection (a); or (B) possesses a firearm, as defined by 18 U.S.C. Section 921; or (4) engages in conduct that contains the elements of any offense listed in Subsection (a)(2)(A) or (C) or the offense of aggravated robbery under Section 29.03, Penal Code, against another student, without regard to whether the conduct occurs on or off of school property or while attending a school-sponsored or school-related activity on or off of school property. (c) A student may be expelled if the student, while placed in an alternative education program for disciplinary reasons, continues to engage in serious or persistent misbehavior that violates the district’s student code of conduct.

Appendix 2

(d) A student shall be expelled if the student engages in conduct that contains the elements of any offense listed in Subsection (a), and may be expelled if the student engages in conduct that contains the elements of any offense listed in Subsection (b)(2)(C), against any employee or volunteer in retaliation for or as a result of the person’s employment or association with a school district, without regard to whether the conduct occurs on or off of school property or while attending a school-sponsored or school-related activity on or off of school property. (e) In accordance with 20 U.S.C. Section 7151, a local educational agency, including a school district, home-rule school district, or open-enrollment charter school, shall expel a student who brings a firearm, as defined by 18 U.S.C. Section 921, to school. The student must be expelled from the student’s regular campus for a period of at least one year, except that: (1) the superintendent or other chief administrative officer of the school district or of the other local educational agency, as defined by 20 U. S.C. Section 7801, may modify the length of the expulsion in the case of an individual student; (2) the district or other local educational agency shall provide educational services to an expelled student in a disciplinary alternative education program as provided by Section 37.008 if the student is younger than 10 years of age on the date of expulsion; and (3) the district or other local educational agency may provide educational services to an expelled student who is 10 years of age or older in a disciplinary alternative education program as provided in Section 37.008. (f) A student who engages in conduct that contains the elements of the offense of criminal mischief under Section 28.03, Penal Code, may be expelled at the district’s discretion if the conduct is punishable as a felony under that section. The student shall be referred to the authorized officer of the juvenile court regardless of whether the student is expelled. (g) In addition to any notice required under Article 15.27, Code of Criminal Procedure, a school district shall inform each educator who has responsibility for, or is under the direction and supervision of an educator who has responsibility for, the instruction of a student who has engaged in any violation listed in this section of the student’s misconduct. Each educator shall keep the information received under this subsection confidential from any person not entitled to the information under this subsection, except that the educator may share the information with the student’s

577

578

Appendix 2

(h)

(i)

(j)

(k)

parent or guardian as provided for by state or federal law. The State Board for Educator Certification may revoke or suspend the certification of an educator who intentionally violates this subsection. Subject to Subsection (e), notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a student who is younger than 10 years of age may not be expelled for engaging in conduct described by this section. A student who engages in conduct described by Subsection (a) may be expelled from school by the district in which the student attends school if the student engages in that conduct: (1) on school property of another district in this state; or (2) while attending a school-sponsored or school-related activity of a school in another district in this state. A student may not be expelled solely on the basis of the student’s use, exhibition, or possession of a firearm that occurs: (1) at an approved target range facility that is not located on a school campus; and (2) while participating in or preparing for a school-sponsored shooting sports competition or a shooting sports educational activity that is sponsored or supported by the Parks and Wildlife Department or a shooting sports sanctioning organization working with the department. Subsection (k) does not authorize a student to bring a firearm on school property to participate in or prepare for a school-sponsored shooting sports competition or a shooting sports educational activity described by that subsection.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1015, Sec. 5, eff. June 19, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 542, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 30, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 486, Sec. 2, eff. June 11, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 225, Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 443, Sec. 1, eff. June 20, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1055, Sec. 10, eff. June 20, 2003. Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 504, Sec. 4, eff. June 17, 2005. Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 728, Sec. 5.004, eff. September 1, 2005. Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 593, Sec. 3.26, eff. September 1, 2007. Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 338, Sec. 1, eff. June 19, 2009.

Appendix 2

Sec. 37.008. Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs. (a) Each school district shall provide a disciplinary alternative education program that: (1) is provided in a setting other than a student’s regular classroom; (2) is located on or off of a regular school campus; (3) provides for the students who are assigned to the disciplinary alternative education program to be separated from students who are not assigned to the program; (4) focuses on English language arts, mathematics, science, history, and self-discipline; (5) provides for students’ educational and behavioral needs; (6) provides supervision and counseling; (7) employs only teachers who meet all certification requirements established under Subchapter B, Chapter 21; and (8) provides not less than the minimum amount of instructional time per day required by Section 25.082(a). (a-1) The agency shall adopt minimum standards for the operation of disciplinary alternative education programs, including standards relating to: (1) student/teacher ratios; (2) student health and safety; (3) reporting of abuse, neglect, or exploitation of students; (4) training for teachers in behavior management and safety procedures; and (5) planning for a student’s transition from a disciplinary alternative education program to a regular campus. (b) A disciplinary alternative education program may provide for a student’s transfer to: (1) a different campus; (2) a school-community guidance center; or (3) a community-based alternative school. (c) An off-campus disciplinary alternative education program is not subject to a requirement imposed by this title, other than a limitation on liability, a reporting requirement, or a requirement imposed by this chapter or by Chapter 39. (d) A school district may provide a disciplinary alternative education program jointly with one or more other districts.

579

580

Appendix 2

(e) Each school district shall cooperate with government agencies and community organizations that provide services in the district to students placed in a disciplinary alternative education program. (f) A student removed to a disciplinary alternative education program is counted in computing the average daily attendance of students in the district for the student’s time in actual attendance in the program. (g) A school district shall allocate to a disciplinary alternative education program the same expenditure per student attending the disciplinary alternative education program, including federal, state, and local funds, that would be allocated to the student’s school if the student were attending the student’s regularly assigned education program, including a special education program. (h) A school district may not place a student, other than a student suspended as provided under Section 37.005 or expelled as provided under Section 37.007, in an unsupervised setting as a result of conduct for which a student may be placed in a disciplinary alternative education program. (i) On request of a school district, a regional education service center may provide to the district information on developing a disciplinary alternative education program that takes into consideration the district’s size, wealth, and existing facilities in determining the program best suited to the district. (j) If a student placed in a disciplinary alternative education program enrolls in another school district before the expiration of the period of placement, the board of trustees of the district requiring the placement shall provide to the district in which the student enrolls, at the same time other records of the student are provided, a copy of the placement order. The district in which the student enrolls shall inform each educator who will have responsibility for, or will be under the direction and supervision of an educator who will have responsibility for, the instruction of the student of the contents of the placement order. Each educator shall keep the information received under this subsection confidential from any person not entitled to the information under this subsection, except that the educator may share the information with the student’s parent or guardian as provided for by state or federal law. The district in which the student enrolls may continue the disciplinary alternative education program placement under the terms of the order or may allow the student to attend regular classes without completing the period of placement. A district may take any action permitted by this subsection if: (1) the student was placed in a disciplinary alternative education program by an open-enrollment charter school under Section 12.131 and the charter school provides to the district a copy of the placement order; or

Appendix 2

(2) the student was placed in a disciplinary alternative education program by a school district in another state and: (A) the out-of-state district provides to the district a copy of the placement order; and (B) the grounds for the placement by the out-of-state district are grounds for placement in the district in which the student is enrolling. (j-1) If a student was placed in a disciplinary alternative education program by a school district in another state for a period that exceeds one year and a school district in this state in which the student enrolls continues the placement under Subsection (j), the district shall reduce the period of the placement so that the aggregate period does not exceed one year unless, after a review, the district determines that: (1) the student is a threat to the safety of other students or to district employees; or (2) extended placement is in the best interest of the student. (k) A program of educational and support services may be provided to a student and the student’s parents when the offense involves drugs or alcohol as specified under Section 37.006 or 37.007. A disciplinary alternative education program that provides chemical dependency treatment services must be licensed under Chapter 464, Health and Safety Code. (l) A school district is required to provide in the district’s disciplinary alternative education program a course necessary to fulfill a student’s high school graduation requirements only as provided by this subsection. A school district shall offer a student removed to a disciplinary alternative education program an opportunity to complete coursework before the beginning of the next school year. The school district may provide the student an opportunity to complete coursework through any method available, including a correspondence course, distance learning, or summer school. The district may not charge the student for a course provided under this subsection. (m) The commissioner shall adopt rules necessary to evaluate annually the performance of each district’s disciplinary alternative education program established under this subchapter. The evaluation required by this section shall be based on indicators defined by the commissioner, but must include student performance on assessment instruments required under Sections 39.023(a) and (c). Academically, the mission of disciplinary alternative education programs shall be to enable students to perform at grade level. (m-1) The commissioner shall develop a process for evaluating a school district disciplinary alternative education program electronically. The commissioner

581

582

Appendix 2

shall also develop a system and standards for review of the evaluation or use systems already available at the agency. The system must be designed to identify districts that are at high risk of having inaccurate disciplinary alternative education program data or of failing to comply with disciplinary alternative education program requirements. The commissioner shall notify the board of trustees of a district of any objection the commissioner has to the district’s disciplinary alternative education program data or of a violation of a law or rule revealed by the data, including any violation of disciplinary alternative education program requirements, or of any recommendation by the commissioner concerning the data. If the data reflect that a penal law has been violated, the commissioner shall notify the county attorney, district attorney, or criminal district attorney, as appropriate, and the attorney general. The commissioner is entitled to access to all district records the commissioner considers necessary or appropriate for the review, analysis, or approval of disciplinary alternative education program data. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1015, Sec. 6, eff. June 19, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 396, Sec. 2.16, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1112, Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 631, Sec. 2, eff. June 20, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1055, Sec. 11, eff. June 20, 2003. Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 504, Sec. 5, eff. June 17, 2005. Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1171, Sec. 1, eff. June 15, 2007. Sec. 37.0081. Expulsion and Placement of Certain Students in Alternative Settings. (a) Subject to Subsection (h), but notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, the board of trustees of a school district, or the board’s designee, after an opportunity for a hearing may expel a student and elect to place the student in an alternative setting as provided by Subsection (a-1) if: (1) the student: (A) has received deferred prosecution under Section 53.03, Family Code, for conduct defined as a felony offense in Title 5, Penal Code; (B) has been found by a court or jury to have engaged in delinquent conduct under Section 54.03, Family Code, for conduct defined as a felony offense in Title 5, Penal Code; (C) is charged with engaging in conduct defined as a felony offense in Title 5, Penal Code;

Appendix 2

(D) has been referred to a juvenile court for allegedly engaging in delinquent conduct under Section 54.03, Family Code, for conduct defined as a felony offense in Title 5, Penal Code; (E) has received probation or deferred adjudication for a felony offense under Title 5, Penal Code; (F) has been convicted of a felony offense under Title 5, Penal Code; or (G) has been arrested for or charged with a felony offense under Title 5, Penal Code; and (2) the board or the board’s designee determines that the student’s presence in the regular classroom: (A) threatens the safety of other students or teachers; (B) will be detrimental to the educational process; or (C) is not in the best interests of the district’s students. (a-1) The student must be placed in: (1) a juvenile justice alternative education program, if the school district is located in a county that operates a juvenile justice alternative education program or the school district contracts with the juvenile board of another county for the provision of a juvenile justice alternative education program; or (2) a disciplinary alternative education program. (b) Any decision of the board of trustees or the board’s designee under this section is final and may not be appealed. (c) The board of trustees or the board’s designee may expel the student and order placement in accordance with this section regardless of: (1) the date on which the student’s conduct occurred; (2) the location at which the conduct occurred; (3) whether the conduct occurred while the student was enrolled in the district; or (4) whether the student has successfully completed any court disposition requirements imposed in connection with the conduct. (d) Notwithstanding Section 37.009(c) or (d) or any other provision of this subchapter, a student expelled and ordered placed in an alternative setting by the board of trustees or the board’s designee is subject to that placement until: (1) the student graduates from high school;

583

584

Appendix 2

(e) (f) (g)

(h)

(2) the charges described by Subsection (a)(1) are dismissed or reduced to a misdemeanor offense; or (3) the student completes the term of the placement or is assigned to another program. A student placed in an alternative setting in accordance with this section is entitled to the periodic review prescribed by Section 37.009(e). Subsection (d) continues to apply to the student if the student transfers to another school district in the state. The board of trustees shall reimburse a juvenile justice alternative education program in which a student is placed under this section for the actual cost incurred each day for the student while the student is enrolled in the program. For purposes of this subsection: (1) the actual cost incurred each day for the student is determined by the juvenile board of the county operating the program; and (2) the juvenile board shall determine the actual cost each day of the program based on the board’s annual audit. To the extent of a conflict between this section and Section 37.007, Section 37.007 prevails.

Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1055, Sec. 12, eff. June 20, 2003. Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1240, Sec. 1, eff. June 15, 2007. Sec. 37.0082. Assessment of Academic Growth of Students in Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs. (a) To assess a student’s academic growth during placement in a disciplinary alternative education program, a school district shall administer to a student placed in a program for a period of 90 school days or longer an assessment instrument approved by the commissioner for that purpose. The instrument shall be administered: (1) initially on placement of the student in the program; and (2) subsequently on the date of the student’s departure from the program, or as near that date as possible. (b) The assessment instrument required by this section: (1) must be designed to assess at least a student’s basic skills in reading and mathematics;

Appendix 2

(2) may be: (A) comparable to any assessment instrument generally administered to students placed in juvenile justice alternative education programs for a similar purpose; or (B) based on an appropriate alternative assessment instrument developed by the agency to measure student academic growth; and (3) is in addition to the assessment instruments required to be administered under Chapter 39. (c) The commissioner shall adopt rules necessary to implement this section. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1240, Sec. 2, eff. June 15, 2007. Sec. 37.009. Conference; Hearing; Review. (a) Not later than the third class day after the day on which a student is removed from class by the teacher under Section 37.002(b) or (d) or by the school principal or other appropriate administrator under Section 37.001(a)(2) or 37.006, the principal or other appropriate administrator shall schedule a conference among the principal or other appropriate administrator, a parent or guardian of the student, the teacher removing the student from class, if any, and the student. At the conference, the student is entitled to written or oral notice of the reasons for the removal, an explanation of the basis for the removal, and an opportunity to respond to the reasons for the removal. The student may not be returned to the regular classroom pending the conference. Following the conference, and whether or not each requested person is in attendance after valid attempts to require the person’s attendance, the principal shall order the placement of the student for a period consistent with the student code of conduct. If school district policy allows a student to appeal to the board of trustees or the board’s designee a decision of the principal or other appropriate administrator, other than an expulsion under Section 37.007, the decision of the board or the board’s designee is final and may not be appealed. If the period of the placement is inconsistent with the guidelines included in the student code of conduct under Section 37.001(a)(5), the order must give notice of the inconsistency. The period of the placement may not exceed one year unless, after a review, the district determines that: (1) the student is a threat to the safety of other students or to district employees; or (2) extended placement is in the best interest of the student.

585

586

Appendix 2

(b) If a student’s placement in a disciplinary alternative education program is to extend beyond 60 days or the end of the next grading period, whichever is earlier, a student’s parent or guardian is entitled to notice of and an opportunity to participate in a proceeding before the board of trustees of the school district or the board’s designee, as provided by policy of the board of trustees of the district. Any decision of the board or the board’s designee under this subsection is final and may not be appealed. (c) Before it may place a student in a disciplinary alternative education program for a period that extends beyond the end of the school year, the board or the board’s designee must determine that: (1) the student’s presence in the regular classroom program or at the student’s regular campus presents a danger of physical harm to the student or to another individual; or (2) the student has engaged in serious or persistent misbehavior that violates the district’s student code of conduct. (d) The board or the board’s designee shall set a term for a student’s placement in a disciplinary alternative education program. If the period of the placement is inconsistent with the guidelines included in the student code of conduct under Section 37.001(a)(5), the order must give notice of the inconsistency. The period of the placement may not exceed one year unless, after a review, the district determines that: (1) the student is a threat to the safety of other students or to district employees; or (2) extended placement is in the best interest of the student. (e) A student placed in a disciplinary alternative education program shall be provided a review of the student’s status, including a review of the student’s academic status, by the board’s designee at intervals not to exceed 120 days. In the case of a high school student, the board’s designee, with the student’s parent or guardian, shall review the student’s progress towards meeting high school graduation requirements and shall establish a specific graduation plan for the student. The district is not required under this subsection to provide a course in the district’s disciplinary alternative education program except as required by Section 37.008(l). At the review, the student or the student’s parent or guardian must be given the opportunity to present arguments for the student’s return to the regular classroom or campus. The student may not be returned to the classroom of the teacher who removed the student without that teacher’s consent. The teacher may not be coerced to consent.

Appendix 2

(f) Before a student may be expelled under Section 37.007, the board or the board’s designee must provide the student a hearing at which the student is afforded appropriate due process as required by the federal constitution and which the student’s parent or guardian is invited, in writing, to attend. At the hearing, the student is entitled to be represented by the student’s parent or guardian or another adult who can provide guidance to the student and who is not an employee of the school district. If the school district makes a good-faith effort to inform the student and the student’s parent or guardian of the time and place of the hearing, the district may hold the hearing regardless of whether the student, the student’s parent or guardian, or another adult representing the student attends. If the decision to expel a student is made by the board’s designee, the decision may be appealed to the board. The decision of the board may be appealed by trial de novo to a district court of the county in which the school district’s central administrative office is located. (g) The board or the board’s designee shall deliver to the student and the student’s parent or guardian a copy of the order placing the student in a disciplinary alternative education program under Section 37.001, 37.002, or 37.006 or expelling the student under Section 37.007. (h) If the period of an expulsion is inconsistent with the guidelines included in the student code of conduct under Section 37.001(a)(5), the order must give notice of the inconsistency. The period of an expulsion may not exceed one year unless, after a review, the district determines that: (1) the student is a threat to the safety of other students or to district employees; or (2) extended placement is in the best interest of the student. After a school district notifies the parents or guardians of a student that the student has been expelled, the parent or guardian shall provide adequate supervision of the student during the period of expulsion. (i) If a student withdraws from the district before an order for placement in a disciplinary alternative education program or expulsion is entered under this section, the principal or board, as appropriate, may complete the proceedings and enter an order. If the student subsequently enrolls in the district during the same or subsequent school year, the district may enforce the order at that time except for any period of the placement or expulsion that has been served by the student on enrollment in another district that honored the order. If the principal or board fails to enter an order after the student withdraws, the next district in which the student enrolls may complete the proceedings and enter an order.

587

588

Appendix 2

(j) If, during the term of a placement or expulsion ordered under this section, a student engages in additional conduct for which placement in a disciplinary alternative education program or expulsion is required or permitted, additional proceedings may be conducted under this section regarding that conduct and the principal or board, as appropriate, may enter an additional order as a result of those proceedings. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1015, Sec. 7, eff. June 19, 1997; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1055, Sec. 13, eff. June 20, 2003. Sec. 37.0091. Notice to Noncustodial Parent. (a) A noncustodial parent may request in writing that a school district or school, for the remainder of the school year in which the request is received, provide that parent with a copy of any written notification relating to student misconduct under Section 37.006 or 37.007 that is generally provided by the district or school to a student’s parent or guardian. (b) A school district or school may not unreasonably deny a request authorized by Subsection (a). (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a school district or school shall comply with any applicable court order of which the district or school has knowledge. Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1055, Sec. 14, eff. June 20, 2003. Sec. 37.010. Court Involvement. (a) Not later than the second business day after the date a hearing is held under Section 37.009, the board of trustees of a school district or the board’s designee shall deliver a copy of the order placing a student in a disciplinary alternative education program under Section 37.006 or expelling a student under Section 37.007 and any information required under Section 52.04, Family Code, to the authorized officer of the juvenile court in the county in which the student resides. In a county that operates a program under Section 37.011, an expelled student shall to the extent provided by law or by the memorandum of understanding immediately attend the educational program from the date of expulsion, except that in a county with a population greater than 125,000, every expelled student who is not detained or receiving treatment under an order of the juvenile court must be enrolled in an educational program.

Appendix 2

(b) If a student is expelled under Section 37.007(c), the board or its designee shall refer the student to the authorized officer of the juvenile court for appropriate proceedings under Title 3, Family Code. (c) Unless the juvenile board for the county in which the district’s central administrative office is located has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the district’s board of trustees concerning the juvenile probation department’s role in supervising and providing other support services for students in disciplinary alternative education programs, a court may not order a student expelled under Section 37.007 to attend a regular classroom, a regular campus, or a school district disciplinary alternative education program as a condition of probation. (d) Unless the juvenile board for the county in which the district’s central administrative office is located has entered into a memorandum of understanding as described by Subsection (c), if a court orders a student to attend a disciplinary alternative education program as a condition of probation once during a school year and the student is referred to juvenile court again during that school year, the juvenile court may not order the student to attend a disciplinary alternative education program in a district without the district’s consent until the student has successfully completed any sentencing requirements the court imposes. (e) Any placement in a disciplinary alternative education program by a court under this section must prohibit the student from attending or participating in school-sponsored or school-related activities. (f) If a student is expelled under Section 37.007, on the recommendation of the committee established under Section 37.003 or on its own initiative, a district may readmit the student while the student is completing any court disposition requirements the court imposes. After the student has successfully completed any court disposition requirements the court imposes, including conditions of a deferred prosecution ordered by the court, or such conditions required by the prosecutor or probation department, if the student meets the requirements for admission into the public schools established by this title, a district may not refuse to admit the student, but the district may place the student in the disciplinary alternative education program. Notwithstanding Section 37.002(d), the student may not be returned to the classroom of the teacher under whose supervision the offense occurred without that teacher’s consent. The teacher may not be coerced to consent. (g) If an expelled student enrolls in another school district, the board of trustees of the district that expelled the student shall provide to the district in which the student enrolls, at the same time other records of the student are provided,

589

590

Appendix 2

a copy of the expulsion order and the referral to the authorized officer of the juvenile court. The district in which the student enrolls may continue the expulsion under the terms of the order, may place the student in a disciplinary alternative education program for the period specified by the expulsion order, or may allow the student to attend regular classes without completing the period of expulsion. A district may take any action permitted by this subsection if the student was expelled by a school district in another state if: (1) the out-of-state district provides to the district a copy of the expulsion order; and (2) the grounds for the expulsion are also grounds for expulsion in the district in which the student is enrolling. (g-1) If a student was expelled by a school district in another state for a period that exceeds one year and a school district in this state continues the expulsion or places the student in a disciplinary alternative education program under Subsection (g), the district shall reduce the period of the expulsion or placement so that the aggregate period does not exceed one year unless, after a review, the district determines that: (1) the student is a threat to the safety of other students or to district employees; or (2) extended placement is in the best interest of the student. (h) A person is not liable in civil damages for a referral to juvenile court as required by this section. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1015, Sec. 8, eff. June 19, 1997; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1055, Sec. 15, eff. June 20, 2003. Sec. 37.011. Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program. (a) The juvenile board of a county with a population greater than 125,000 shall develop a juvenile justice alternative education program, subject to the approval of the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission. The juvenile board of a county with a population of 125,000 or less may develop a juvenile justice alternative education program. For the purposes of this subchapter, only a disciplinary alternative education program operated under the authority of a juvenile board of a county is considered a juvenile justice alternative education program. A juvenile justice alternative education program in a county with a population of 125,000 or less: (1) is not required to be approved by the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission; and (2) is not subject to Subsection (c), (d), (f), or (g).

Appendix 2

(a-1) For purposes of this section and Section 37.010(a), a county with a population greater than 125,000 is considered to be a county with a population of 125,000 or less if: (1) the county had a population of 125,000 or less according to the 2000 federal census; and (2) the juvenile board of the county enters into, with the approval of the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission, a memorandum of understanding with each school district within the county that: (A) outlines the responsibilities of the board and school districts in minimizing the number of students expelled without receiving alternative educational services; and (B) includes the coordination procedures required by Section 37.013. (b) If a student admitted into the public schools of a school district under Section 25.001(b) is expelled from school for conduct for which expulsion is required under Section 37.007(a), (d), or (e), the juvenile court, the juvenile board, or the juvenile board’s designee, as appropriate, shall: (1) if the student is placed on probation under Section 54.04, Family Code, order the student to attend the juvenile justice alternative education program in the county in which the student resides from the date of disposition as a condition of probation, unless the child is placed in a post-adjudication treatment facility; (2) if the student is placed on deferred prosecution under Section 53.03, Family Code, by the court, prosecutor, or probation department, require the student to immediately attend the juvenile justice alternative education program in the county in which the student resides for a period not to exceed six months as a condition of the deferred prosecution; (3) in determining the conditions of the deferred prosecution or courtordered probation, consider the length of the school district’s expulsion order for the student; and (4) provide timely educational services to the student in the juvenile justice alternative education program in the county in which the student resides, regardless of the student’s age or whether the juvenile court has jurisdiction over the student. (b-1) Subsection (b)(4) does not require that educational services be provided to a student who is not entitled to admission into the public schools of a school district under Section 25.001(b).

591

592

Appendix 2

(c) A juvenile justice alternative education program shall adopt a student code of conduct in accordance with Section 37.001. (d) A juvenile justice alternative education program must focus on English language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and self-discipline. Each school district shall consider course credit earned by a student while in a juvenile justice alternative education program as credit earned in a district school. Each program shall administer assessment instruments under Subchapter B, Chapter 39, and shall offer a high school equivalency program. The juvenile board or the board’s designee, with the parent or guardian of each student, shall regularly review the student’s academic progress. In the case of a high school student, the board or the board’s designee, with the student’s parent or guardian, shall review the student’s progress towards meeting high school graduation requirements and shall establish a specific graduation plan for the student. The program is not required to provide a course necessary to fulfill a student’s high school graduation requirements other than a course specified by this subsection. (e) A juvenile justice alternative education program may be provided in a facility owned by a school district. A school district may provide personnel and services for a juvenile justice alternative education program under a contract with the juvenile board. (f) A juvenile justice alternative education program must operate at least seven hours per day and 180 days per year, except that a program may apply to the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission for a waiver of the 180-day requirement. The commission may not grant a waiver to a program under this subsection for a number of days that exceeds the highest number of instructional days waived by the commissioner during the same school year for a school district served by the program. (g) A juvenile justice alternative education program shall be subject to a written operating policy developed by the local juvenile justice board and submitted to the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission for review and comment. A juvenile justice alternative education program is not subject to a requirement imposed by this title, other than a reporting requirement or a requirement imposed by this chapter or by Chapter 39. (h) Academically, the mission of juvenile justice alternative education programs shall be to enable students to perform at grade level. For purposes of accountability under Chapter 39, a student enrolled in a juvenile justice alternative education program is reported as if the student were enrolled at the student’s assigned campus in the student’s regularly assigned education program, including a special education program. Annually the Texas

Appendix 2

Juvenile Probation Commission, with the agreement of the commissioner, shall develop and implement a system of accountability consistent with Chapter 39, where appropriate, to assure that students make progress toward grade level while attending a juvenile justice alternative education program. The Texas Juvenile Probation Commission shall adopt rules for the distribution of funds appropriated under this section to juvenile boards in counties required to establish juvenile justice alternative education programs. Except as determined by the commissioner, a student served by a juvenile justice alternative education program on the basis of an expulsion required under Section 37.007(a), (d), or (e) is not eligible for Foundation School Program funding under Chapter 42 or 31 if the juvenile justice alternative education program receives funding from the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission under this subchapter. (i) A student transferred to a juvenile justice alternative education program must participate in the program for the full period ordered by the juvenile court unless the student’s school district agrees to accept the student before the date ordered by the juvenile court. The juvenile court may not order a period of transfer under this section that exceeds the term of any probation ordered by the juvenile court. (j) In relation to the development and operation of a juvenile justice alternative education program, a juvenile board and a county and a commissioners court are immune from liability to the same extent as a school district, and the juvenile board’s or county’s professional employees and volunteers are immune from liability to the same extent as a school district’s professional employees and volunteers. (k) Each school district in a county with a population greater than 125,000 and the county juvenile board shall annually enter into a joint memorandum of understanding that: (1) outlines the responsibilities of the juvenile board concerning the establishment and operation of a juvenile justice alternative education program under this section; (2) defines the amount and conditions on payments from the school district to the juvenile board for students of the school district served in the juvenile justice alternative education program whose placement was not made on the basis of an expulsion required under Section 37.007(a), (d), or (e); (3) identifies those categories of conduct that the school district has defined in its student code of conduct as constituting serious or

593

594

Appendix 2

(l)

(m)

(n)

(o)

persistent misbehavior for which a student may be placed in the juvenile justice alternative education program; (4) identifies and requires a timely placement and specifies a term of placement for expelled students for whom the school district has received a notice under Section 52.041(d), Family Code; (5) establishes services for the transitioning of expelled students to the school district prior to the completion of the student’s placement in the juvenile justice alternative education program; (6) establishes a plan that provides transportation services for students placed in the juvenile justice alternative education program; (7) establishes the circumstances and conditions under which a juvenile may be allowed to remain in the juvenile justice alternative education program setting once the juvenile is no longer under juvenile court jurisdiction; and (8) establishes a plan to address special education services required by law. The school district shall be responsible for providing an immediate educational program to students who engage in behavior resulting in expulsion under Section 37.007(b), (c), and (f) but who are not eligible for admission into the juvenile justice alternative education program in accordance with the memorandum of understanding required under this section. The school district may provide the program or the school district may contract with a county juvenile board, a private provider, or one or more other school districts to provide the program. The memorandum of understanding shall address the circumstances under which such students who continue to engage in serious or persistent misbehavior shall be admitted into the juvenile justice alternative education program. Each school district in a county with a population greater than 125,000 and the county juvenile board shall adopt a joint memorandum of understanding as required by this section not later than September 1 of each school year. If a student who is ordered to attend a juvenile justice alternative education program moves from one county to another, the juvenile court may request the juvenile justice alternative education program in the county to which the student moves to provide educational services to the student in accordance with the local memorandum of understanding between the school district and juvenile board in the receiving county. In relation to the development and operation of a juvenile justice alternative education program, a juvenile board and a county and a commissioners court are immune from liability to the same extent as a school district, and

Appendix 2

the juvenile board’s or county’s employees and volunteers are immune from liability to the same extent as a school district’s employees and volunteers. (p) If a district elects to contract with the juvenile board for placement in the juvenile justice alternative education program of students expelled under Section 37.007(b), (c), and (f) and the juvenile board and district are unable to reach an agreement in the memorandum of understanding, either party may request that the issues of dispute be referred to a binding arbitration process that uses a qualified alternative dispute resolution arbitrator in which each party will pay its pro rata share of the arbitration costs. Each party must submit its final proposal to the arbitrator. If the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, the juvenile board shall select an arbitrator, the school districts shall select an arbitrator, and those two arbitrators shall select an arbitrator who will decide the issues in dispute. An arbitration decision issued under this subsection is enforceable in a court in the county in which the juvenile justice alternative education program is located. Any decision by an arbitrator concerning the amount of the funding for a student who is expelled and attending a juvenile justice alternative education program must provide an amount sufficient based on operation of the juvenile justice alternative education program in accordance with this chapter. In determining the amount to be paid by a school district for an expelled student enrolled in a juvenile justice alternative education program, the arbitrator shall consider the relevant factors, including evidence of: (1) the actual average total per student expenditure in the district’s alternative education setting; (2) the expected per student cost in the juvenile justice alternative education program as described and agreed on in the memorandum of understanding and in compliance with this chapter; and (3) the costs necessary to achieve the accountability goals under this chapter. (q) In accordance with rules adopted by the board of trustees for the Teacher Retirement System of Texas, a certified educator employed by a juvenile board in a juvenile justice alternative education program shall be eligible for membership and participation in the system to the same extent that an employee of a public school district is eligible. The juvenile board shall make any contribution that otherwise would be the responsibility of the school district if the person were employed by the school district, and the state shall make any contribution to the same extent as if the person were employed by a school district.

595

596

Appendix 2

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1015, Sec. 9, eff. June 19, 1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1282, Sec. 1, eff. June 20, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 396, Sec. 2.17, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1225, Sec. 2, eff. June 15, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1055, Sec. 16, eff. June 20, 2003. Amended by: Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 376, Sec. 1, eff. June 19, 2009. Sec. 37.012. Funding of Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs. (a) Subject to Section 37.011(n), the school district in which a student is enrolled on the date the student is expelled for conduct for which expulsion is permitted but not required under Section 37.007 shall, if the student is served by the juvenile justice alternative education program, provide funding to the juvenile board for the portion of the school year for which the juvenile justice alternative education program provides educational services in an amount determined by the memorandum of understanding under Section 37.011(k)(2). (b) Funds received under this section must be expended on juvenile justice alternative education programs. (c) The Office of State-Federal Relations shall assist a local juvenile probation department in identifying additional state or federal funds to assist local juvenile probation departments conducting educational or job training programs within juvenile justice alternative education programs. (d) A school district is not required to provide funding to a juvenile board for a student who is assigned by a court to a juvenile justice alternative education program but who has not been expelled. (e) Except as otherwise authorized by law, a juvenile justice alternative education program may not require a student or the parent or guardian of a student to pay any fee, including an entrance fee or supply fee, for participating in the program. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1015, Sec. 10, eff. June 19, 1997; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1055, Sec. 17, eff. June 20, 2003. Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 964, Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2005. Sec. 37.013. Coordination Between School Districts and Juvenile Boards. The board of trustees of the school district or the board’s designee shall at the call of the president of the board of trustees regularly meet with the juvenile board for the

Appendix 2

county in which the district’s central administrative office is located or the juvenile board’s designee concerning supervision and rehabilitative services appropriate for expelled students and students assigned to disciplinary alternative education programs. Matters for discussion shall include service by probation officers at the disciplinary alternative education program site, recruitment of volunteers to serve as mentors and provide tutoring services, and coordination with other social service agencies. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1055, Sec. 18, eff. June 20, 2003. Sec. 37.014. Court-Related Children—Liaison Officers. Each school district shall appoint at least one educator to act as liaison officer for court-related children who are enrolled in the district. The liaison officer shall provide counseling and services for each court-related child and the child’s parents to establish or reestablish normal attendance and progress of the child in the school. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.015. Reports to Local Law Enforcement; Liability. (a) The principal of a public or private primary or secondary school, or a person designated by the principal under Subsection (d), shall notify any school district police department and the police department of the municipality in which the school is located or, if the school is not in a municipality, the sheriff of the county in which the school is located if the principal has reasonable grounds to believe that any of the following activities occur in school, on school property, or at a school-sponsored or school-related activity on or off school property, whether or not the activity is investigated by school security officers: (1) conduct that may constitute an offense listed under Section 508.149, Government Code; (2) deadly conduct under Section 22.05, Penal Code; (3) a terroristic threat under Section 22.07, Penal Code; (4) the use, sale, or possession of a controlled substance, drug paraphernalia, or marihuana under Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code; (5) the possession of any of the weapons or devices listed under Sections 46.01(1)-(14) or Section 46.01(16), Penal Code; (6) conduct that may constitute a criminal offense under Section 71.02, Penal Code; or (7) conduct that may constitute a criminal offense for which a student may be expelled under Section 37.007(a), (d), or (e).

597

598

Appendix 2

(b) A person who makes a notification under this section shall include the name and address of each student the person believes may have participated in the activity. (c) A notification is not required under Subsection (a) if the person reasonably believes that the activity does not constitute a criminal offense. (d) The principal of a public or private primary or secondary school may designate a school employee who is under the supervision of the principal to make the reports required by this section. (e) The person who makes the notification required under Subsection (a) shall also notify each instructional or support employee of the school who has regular contact with a student whose conduct is the subject of the notice. (f) A person is not liable in civil damages for reporting in good faith as required by this section. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 12.05, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1055, Sec. 19, eff. June 20, 2003. Sec. 37.016. Report of Drug Offenses; Liability. A teacher, school administrator, or school employee is not liable in civil damages for reporting to a school administrator or governmental authority, in the exercise of professional judgment within the scope of the teacher’s, administrator’s, or employee’s duties, a student whom the teacher suspects of using, passing, or selling, on school property: (1) marihuana or a controlled substance, as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code; (2) a dangerous drug, as defined by Chapter 483, Health and Safety Code; (3) an abusable glue or aerosol paint, as defined by Chapter 485, Health and Safety Code, or a volatile chemical, as listed in Chapter 484, Health and Safety Code, if the substance is used or sold for the purpose of inhaling its fumes or vapors; or (4) an alcoholic beverage, as defined by Section 1.04, Alcoholic Beverage Code. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.017. Destruction Of Certain Records. Information received by a school district under Article 15.27, Code of Criminal Procedure, may not be attached to the permanent academic file of the student

Appendix 2

who is the subject of the report. The school district shall destroy the information at the end of the school year in which the report was filed. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.018. Information for Educators. Each school district shall provide each teacher and administrator with a copy of this subchapter and with a copy of the local policy relating to this subchapter. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.019. Emergency Placement Or Expulsion. (a) This subchapter does not prevent the principal or the principal’s designee from ordering the immediate placement of a student in a disciplinary alternative education program if the principal or the principal’s designee reasonably believes the student’s behavior is so unruly, disruptive, or abusive that it seriously interferes with a teacher’s ability to communicate effectively with the students in a class, with the ability of the student’s classmates to learn, or with the operation of school or a school-sponsored activity. (b) This subchapter does not prevent the principal or the principal’s designee from ordering the immediate expulsion of a student if the principal or the principal’s designee reasonably believes that action is necessary to protect persons or property from imminent harm. (c) At the time of an emergency placement or expulsion, the student shall be given oral notice of the reason for the action. The reason must be a reason for which placement in a disciplinary alternative education program or expulsion may be made on a nonemergency basis. Within a reasonable time after the emergency placement or expulsion, but not later than the 10th day after the date of the placement or expulsion, the student shall be accorded the appropriate due process as required under Section 37.009. If the student subject to the emergency placement or expulsion is a student with disabilities who receives special education services, the emergency placement or expulsion is subject to federal law and regulations and must be consistent with the consequences that would apply under this subchapter to a student without a disability. (d) A principal or principal’s designee is not liable in civil damages for an emergency placement under this section. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 767, Sec. 7, eff. June 13, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1055, Sec. 20, eff. June 20, 2003.

599

600

Appendix 2

Sec. 37.020. Reports Relating to Expulsions and Disciplinary Alternative Education Program Placements. (a) In the manner required by the commissioner, each school district shall annually report to the commissioner the information required by this section. (b) For each placement in a disciplinary alternative education program established under Section 37.008, the district shall report: (1) information identifying the student, including the student’s race, sex, and date of birth, that will enable the agency to compare placement data with information collected through other reports; (2) information indicating whether the placement was based on: (A) conduct violating the student code of conduct adopted under Section 37.001; (B) conduct for which a student may be removed from class under Section 37.002(b); (C) conduct for which placement in a disciplinary alternative education program is required by Section 37.006; or (D) conduct occurring while a student was enrolled in another district and for which placement in a disciplinary alternative education program is permitted by Section 37.008(j); (3) the number of full or partial days the student was assigned to the program and the number of full or partial days the student attended the program; and (4) the number of placements that were inconsistent with the guidelines included in the student code of conduct under Section 37.001(a)(5). (c) For each expulsion under Section 37.007, the district shall report: (1) information identifying the student, including the student’s race, sex, and date of birth, that will enable the agency to compare placement data with information collected through other reports; (2) information indicating whether the expulsion was based on: (A) conduct for which expulsion is required under Section 37.007, including information specifically indicating whether a student was expelled on the basis of Section 37.007(e); or (B) conduct for which expulsion is permitted under Section 37.007; (3) the number of full or partial days the student was expelled; (4) information indicating whether:

Appendix 2

(A) the student was placed in a juvenile justice alternative education program under Section 37.011; (B) the student was placed in a disciplinary alternative education program; or (C) the student was not placed in a juvenile justice or other disciplinary alternative education program; and (5) the number of expulsions that were inconsistent with the guidelines included in the student code of conduct under Section 37.001(a)(5). Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1015, Sec. 11, eff. June 19, 1997. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1055, Sec. 21, eff. June 20, 2003. Sec. 37.021. Opportunity to Complete Courses During In-School and Certain Other Placements. (a) If a school district removes a student from the regular classroom and places the student in in-school suspension or another setting other than a disciplinary alternative education program, the district shall offer the student the opportunity to complete before the beginning of the next school year each course in which the student was enrolled at the time of the removal. (b) The district may provide the opportunity to complete courses by any method available, including a correspondence course, distance learning, or summer school. Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1055, Sec. 22, eff. June 20, 2003. Sec. 37.022. Notice of Disciplinary Action. (a) In this section: (1) “Disciplinary action” means a suspension, expulsion, placement in an alternative education program, or other limitation in enrollment eligibility of a student by a district or school. (2) “District or school” includes an independent school district, a homerule school district, a campus or campus program charter holder, or an open-enrollment charter school. (b) If a district or school takes disciplinary action against a student and the student subsequently enrolls in another district or school before the expiration of the period of disciplinary action, the governing body of the district or school taking the disciplinary action shall provide to the district or school in which the student enrolls, at the same time other records of the student are provided, a copy of the order of disciplinary action.

601

602

Appendix 2

(c) Subject to Section 37.007(e), the district or school in which the student enrolls may continue the disciplinary action under the terms of the order or may allow the student to attend regular classes without completing the period of disciplinary action. Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 631, Sec. 1, eff. June 20, 2003. Renumbered from Education Code, Section 37.021 by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 728, Sec. 23.001(16), eff. September 1, 2005. Subchapter B. School-Community Guidance Centers Sec. 37.051. Establishment. Each school district may establish a school-community guidance center designed to locate and assist children with problems that interfere with education, including juvenile offenders and children with severe behavioral problems or character disorders. Each center shall coordinate the efforts of school district personnel, local police departments, school attendance officers, and probation officers in working with students, dropouts, and parents in identifying and correcting factors that adversely affect the education of the children. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.052. Cooperative Programs. The board of trustees of a school district may develop cooperative programs with state youth agencies for children found to have engaged in delinquent conduct. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.053. Cooperation of Governmental Agencies. (a) Each governmental agency that is concerned with children and that has jurisdiction in the school district shall cooperate with the schoolcommunity guidance centers on the request of the superintendent of the district and shall designate a liaison to work with the centers in identifying and correcting problems affecting school-age children in the district. (b) The governmental agency may establish or finance a school-community guidance center jointly with the school district according to terms approved by the governing body of each entity participating in the joint establishment or financing of the center. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995.

Appendix 2

Sec. 37.054. Parental Notice, Consent, and Access To Information. (a) Before a student is admitted to a school-community guidance center, the administrator of the center must notify the student’s parent or guardian that the student has been assigned to attend the center. (b) The notification must include: (1) the reason that the student has been assigned to the center; (2) a statement that on request the parent or guardian is entitled to be fully informed in writing of any treatment method or testing program involving the student; and (3) a statement that the parent or guardian may request to be advised and to give written, signed consent for any psychological testing or treatment involving the student. (c) If, after notification, a parent refuses to consent to testing or treatment of the student, the center may not provide any further psychological treatment or testing. (d) A parent or guardian of a student attending a center is entitled to inspect: (1) any instructional or guidance material to be used by the student, including teachers’ manuals, tapes, and films; and (2) the results of any treatment, testing, or guidance method involving the student. (e) The administrator of the center may set a schedule for inspection of materials that allows reasonable access but does not interfere with the conduct of classes or business activities of the school. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.055. Parental Involvement. (a) On admitting a student to a school-community guidance center, a representative of the school district, the student, and the student’s parent shall develop an agreement that specifies the responsibilities of the parent and the student. The agreement must include: (1) a statement of the student’s behavioral and learning objectives; (2) a requirement that the parent attend specified meetings and conferences for teacher review of the student’s progress; and (3) the parent’s acknowledgement that the parent understands and accepts the responsibilities imposed by the agreement regarding

603

604

Appendix 2

attendance at meetings and conferences and assistance in meeting other objectives, defined by the district, to aid student remediation. (b) The superintendent of the school district may obtain a court order from a district court in the school district requiring a parent to comply with an agreement made under this section. A parent who violates a court order issued under this subsection may be punished for contempt of court. (c) In this section, “parent” includes a legal guardian. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.056. Court Supervision. (a) In this section, “court” means a juvenile court or alternate juvenile court designated under Chapter 51, Family Code. The court may delegate responsibility under this section to a referee appointed under Section 51.04, Family Code. (b) If a representative of the school district, the student, and the parent or guardian for any reason fail to reach an agreement under Section 37.055, the court may, on the request of any party and after a hearing, enter an order establishing the responsibilities and duties of each of the parties as the court considers appropriate. (c) The court may compel attendance at any hearing held under this section through any legal process, including subpoena and habeas corpus. (d) If the parties reach an agreement under Section 37.055, and if the written agreement so provides, the court may enter an order that incorporates the terms of the agreement. (e) Any party who violates an order issued under this section may be punished for contempt of court. (f) A school district may enter into an agreement to share the costs incurred by a county under this section. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Subchapter C. Law and Order Sec. 37.081. School District Peace Officers and Security Personnel. (a) The board of trustees of any school district may employ security personnel and may commission peace officers to carry out this subchapter. If a board of trustees authorizes a person employed as security personnel to carry a weapon, the person must be a commissioned peace officer. The jurisdiction of a peace

Appendix 2

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

officer or security personnel under this section shall be determined by the board of trustees and may include all territory in the boundaries of the school district and all property outside the boundaries of the district that is owned, leased, or rented by or otherwise under the control of the school district and the board of trustees that employ the peace officer or security personnel. In a peace officer’s jurisdiction, a peace officer commissioned under this section: (1) has the powers, privileges, and immunities of peace officers; (2) may enforce all laws, including municipal ordinances, county ordinances, and state laws; and (3) may, in accordance with Chapter 52, Family Code, take a juvenile into custody. A school district peace officer may provide assistance to another law enforcement agency. A school district may contract with a political subdivision for the jurisdiction of a school district peace officer to include all territory in the jurisdiction of the political subdivision. A school district peace officer shall perform administrative and law enforcement duties for the school district as determined by the board of trustees of the school district. Those duties must include protecting: (1) the safety and welfare of any person in the jurisdiction of the peace officer; and (2) the property of the school district. The board of trustees of the district shall determine the scope of the onduty and off-duty law enforcement activities of school district peace officers. A school district must authorize in writing any off-duty law enforcement activities performed by a school district peace officer. The chief of police of the school district police department shall be accountable to the superintendent and shall report to the superintendent or the superintendent’s designee. School district police officers shall be supervised by the chief of police of the school district or the chief of police’s designee and shall be licensed by the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education. A school district police department and the law enforcement agencies with which it has overlapping jurisdiction shall enter into a memorandum of understanding that outlines reasonable communication and coordination efforts between the department and the agencies.

605

606

Appendix 2

(h) A peace officer assigned to duty and commissioned under this section shall take and file the oath required of peace officers and shall execute and file a bond in the sum of $1,000, payable to the board of trustees, with two or more sureties, conditioned that the peace officer will fairly, impartially, and faithfully perform all the duties that may be required of the peace officer by law. The bond may be sued on in the name of any person injured until the whole amount of the bond is recovered. Any peace officer commissioned under this section must meet all minimum standards for peace officers established by the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.082. Possession of Paging Devices. (a) The board of trustees of a school district may adopt a policy prohibiting a student from possessing a paging device while on school property or while attending a school-sponsored or school-related activity on or off school property. The policy may establish disciplinary measures to be imposed for violation of the prohibition and may provide for confiscation of the paging device. (b) The policy may provide for the district to: (1) dispose of a confiscated paging device in any reasonable manner after having provided the student’s parent and the company whose name and address or telephone number appear on the device 30 days’ prior notice of its intent to dispose of that device. The notice shall include the serial number of the device and may be made by telephone, telegraph, or in writing; and (2) charge the owner of the device or the student’s parent an administrative fee not to exceed $15 before it releases the device. (c) In this section, “paging device” means a telecommunications device that emits an audible signal, vibrates, displays a message, or otherwise summons or delivers a communication to the possessor. The term does not include an amateur radio under the control of an operator who holds an amateur radio station license issued by the Federal Communications Commission. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 258, Sec. 2.02, eff. September 1, 2007.

Appendix 2

Sec. 37.083. Discipline Management Programs; Sexual Harassment Policies. (a) Each school district shall adopt and implement a discipline management program to be included in the district improvement plan under Section 11.252. The program must provide for prevention of and education concerning unwanted physical or verbal aggression, sexual harassment, and other forms of bullying in school, on school grounds, and in school vehicles. (b) Each school district may develop and implement a sexual harassment policy to be included in the district improvement plan under Section 11.252. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 920, Sec. 4, eff. June 18, 2005. Sec. 37.0831. Dating Violence Policies. (a) Each school district shall adopt and implement a dating violence policy to be included in the district improvement plan under Section 11.252. (b) A dating violence policy must: (1) include a definition of dating violence that includes the intentional use of physical, sexual, verbal, or emotional abuse by a person to harm, threaten, intimidate, or control another person in a dating relationship, as defined by Section 71.0021, Family Code; and (2) address safety planning, enforcement of protective orders, schoolbased alternatives to protective orders, training for teachers and administrators, counseling for affected students, and awareness education for students and parents. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 131, Sec. 1, eff. May 18, 2007. Sec. 37.084. Interagency Sharing of Records. (a) A school district superintendent or the superintendent’s designee may disclose information contained in a student’s educational records to a juvenile justice agency, as that term is defined by Section 58.101, Family Code, if the disclosure is under an interagency agreement authorized by Section 58.0051, Family Code. (b) The commissioner may enter into an interagency agreement to share educational information for research and analytical purposes with the: (1) Texas Juvenile Probation Commission; (2) Texas Youth Commission;

607

608

Appendix 2

(3) Texas Department of Criminal Justice; and (4) Criminal Justice Policy Council. (c) This section does not require or authorize release of student-level information except in conformity with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20 U.S.C. Section 1232g), as amended. Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 217, Sec. 2, eff. May 24, 1999. Subchapter D. Protection of Buildings and Grounds Sec. 37.101. Applicability of Criminal Laws. The criminal laws of the state apply in the areas under the control and jurisdiction of the board of trustees of any school district in this state. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.102. Rules; Penalty. (a) The board of trustees of a school district may adopt rules for the safety and welfare of students, employees, and property and other rules it considers necessary to carry out this subchapter and the governance of the district, including rules providing for the operation and parking of vehicles on school property. The board may adopt and charge a reasonable fee for parking and for providing traffic control. (b) A law or ordinance regulating traffic on a public highway or street applies to the operation of a vehicle on school property, except as modified by this subchapter. (c) A person who violates any rule adopted under this subchapter providing for the operation and parking of vehicles on school property commits an offense. An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1167, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007. Sec. 37.103. Enforcement of Rules. Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, the board of trustees of a school district may authorize any officer commissioned by the board to enforce rules adopted by the board. This subchapter is not intended to restrict the authority of each district to adopt and enforce appropriate rules for the orderly conduct of

Appendix 2

the district in carrying out its purposes and objectives or the right of separate jurisdiction relating to the conduct of its students and personnel. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.104. Courts Having Jurisdiction. The judge of a municipal court of a municipality in which, or any justice of the peace of a county in which, property under the control and jurisdiction of a school district is located may hear and determine criminal cases involving violations of this subchapter or rules adopted under this subchapter. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.105. Unauthorized Persons: Refusal of Entry, Ejection, Identification. The board of trustees of a school district or its authorized representative may refuse to allow a person without legitimate business to enter on property under the board’s control and may eject any undesirable person from the property on the person’s refusal to leave peaceably on request. Identification may be required of any person on the property. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.106. Vehicle Identification Insignia. The board of trustees of a school district may provide for the issuance and use of suitable vehicle identification insignia. The board may bar or suspend a person from driving or parking a vehicle on any school property as a result of the person’s violation of any rule adopted by the board or of this subchapter. Reinstatement of the privileges may be permitted and a reasonable fee assessed. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.107. Trespass on School Grounds. An unauthorized person who trespasses on the grounds of any school district of this state commits an offense. An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.108. Multihazard Emergency Operations Plan; Safety and Security Audit. (a) Each school district or public junior college district shall adopt and implement a multihazard emergency operations plan for use in the district’s facilities. The plan must address mitigation, preparedness, response, and

609

610

Appendix 2

recovery as defined by the commissioner of education or commissioner of higher education in conjunction with the governor’s office of homeland security. The plan must provide for: (1) district employee training in responding to an emergency; (2) if the plan applies to a school district, mandatory school drills and exercises to prepare district students and employees for responding to an emergency; (3) measures to ensure coordination with the Department of State Health Services and local emergency management agencies, law enforcement, health departments, and fire departments in the event of an emergency; and (4) the implementation of a safety and security audit as required by Subsection (b). (b) At least once every three years, each school district or public junior college district shall conduct a safety and security audit of the district’s facilities. To the extent possible, a district shall follow safety and security audit procedures developed by the Texas School Safety Center or a comparable public or private entity. (c) A school district or public junior college district shall report the results of the safety and security audit conducted under Subsection (b) to the district’s board of trustees and, in the manner required by the Texas School Safety Center, to the Texas School Safety Center. (c-1) Except as provided by Subsection (c-2), any document or information collected, developed, or produced during a safety and security audit conducted under Subsection (b) is not subject to disclosure under Chapter 552, Government Code. (c-2) A document relating to a school district’s or public junior college district’s multihazard emergency operations plan is subject to disclosure if the document enables a person to: (1) verify that the district has established a plan and determine the agencies involved in the development of the plan and the agencies coordinating with the district to respond to an emergency, including the Department of State Health Services, local emergency services agencies, law enforcement agencies, health departments, and fire departments; (2) verify that the district’s plan was reviewed within the last 12 months and determine the specific review dates; (3) verify that the plan addresses the four phases of emergency management under Subsection (a);

Appendix 2

(4) verify that district employees have been trained to respond to an emergency and determine the types of training, the number of employees trained, and the person conducting the training; (5) verify that each campus in the district has conducted mandatory emergency drills and exercises in accordance with the plan and determine the frequency of the drills; (6) if the district is a school district, verify that the district has established a plan for responding to a train derailment if required under Subsection (d); (7) verify that the district has completed a safety and security audit under Subsection (b) and determine the date the audit was conducted, the person conducting the audit, and the date the district presented the results of the audit to the district’s board of trustees; (8) verify that the district has addressed any recommendations by the district’s board of trustees for improvement of the plan and determine the district’s progress within the last 12 months; and (9) if the district is a school district, verify that the district has established a visitor policy and identify the provisions governing access to a district building or other district property. (d) A school district shall include in its multihazard emergency operations plan a policy for responding to a train derailment near a district school. A school district is only required to adopt the policy described by this subsection if a district school is located within 1,000 yards of a railroad track, as measured from any point on the school’s real property boundary line. The school district may use any available community resources in developing the policy described by this subsection. Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 780, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2005. Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 258, Sec. 3.02, eff. September 1, 2007. Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1326, Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007. Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1280, Sec. 6.01, eff. September 1, 2009. Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1280, Sec. 6.02, eff. September 1, 2009. Sec. 37.109. School Safety and Security Committee. (a) In accordance with guidelines established by the Texas School Safety Center, each school district shall establish a school safety and security committee.

611

612

Appendix 2

(b) The committee shall: (1) participate on behalf of the district in developing and implementing emergency plans consistent with the district multihazard emergency operations plan required by Section 37.108(a) to ensure that the plans reflect specific campus, facility, or support services needs; (2) provide the district with any campus, facility, or support services information required in connection with a safety and security audit required by Section 37.108(b), a safety and security audit report required by Section 37.108(c), or another report required to be submitted by the district to the Texas School Safety Center; and (3) review each report required to be submitted by the district to the Texas School Safety Center to ensure that the report contains accurate and complete information regarding each campus, facility, or support service in accordance with criteria established by the center. Added by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1280, Sec. 6.03, eff. September 1, 2009. Sec. 37.110. Information Regarding Gang-Free Zones. The superintendent of each public school district and the administrator of each private elementary or secondary school located in the public school district shall ensure that the student handbook for each campus in the public school district includes information on gang-free zones and the consequences of engaging in organized criminal activity within those zones. Added by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1130, Sec. 4, eff. June 19, 2009. Subchapter E. Penal Provisions Sec. 37.121. Fraternities, Sororities, Secret Societies, and Gangs. (a) A person commits an offense if the person: (1) is a member of, pledges to become a member of, joins, or solicits another person to join or pledge to become a member of a public school fraternity, sorority, secret society, or gang; or (2) is not enrolled in a public school and solicits another person to attend a meeting of a public school fraternity, sorority, secret society, or gang or a meeting at which membership in one of those groups is encouraged. (b) A school district board of trustees or an educator shall recommend placing in a disciplinary alternative education program any student under the person’s control who violates Subsection (a). (c) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Appendix 2

(d) In this section, “public school fraternity, sorority, secret society, or gang” means an organization composed wholly or in part of students of public primary or secondary schools that seeks to perpetuate itself by taking in additional members from the students enrolled in school on the basis of the decision of its membership rather than on the free choice of a student in the school who is qualified by the rules of the school to fill the special aims of the organization. The term does not include an agency for public welfare, including Boy Scouts, Hi-Y, Girl Reserves, DeMolay, Rainbow Girls, Pan-American Clubs, scholarship societies, or other similar educational organizations sponsored by state or national education authorities. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1055, Sec. 23, eff. June 20, 2003. Sec. 37.122. Possession of Intoxicants on Public School Grounds. (a) A person commits an offense if the person possesses an intoxicating beverage for consumption, sale, or distribution while: (1) on the grounds or in a building of a public school; or (2) entering or inside any enclosure, field, or stadium where an athletic event sponsored or participated in by a public school of this state is being held. (b) An officer of this state who sees a person violating this section shall immediately seize the intoxicating beverage and, within a reasonable time, deliver it to the county or district attorney to be held as evidence until the trial of the accused possessor. (c) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.123. Disruptive Activities. (a) A person commits an offense if the person, alone or in concert with others, intentionally engages in disruptive activity on the campus or property of any private or public school. (b) For purposes of this section, disruptive activity is: (1) obstructing or restraining the passage of persons in an exit, entrance, or hallway of a building without the authorization of the administration of the school; (2) seizing control of a building or portion of a building to interfere with an administrative, educational, research, or other authorized activity;

613

614

Appendix 2

(3) preventing or attempting to prevent by force or violence or the threat of force or violence a lawful assembly authorized by the school administration so that a person attempting to participate in the assembly is unable to participate due to the use of force or violence or due to a reasonable fear that force or violence is likely to occur; (4) disrupting by force or violence or the threat of force or violence a lawful assembly in progress; or (5) obstructing or restraining the passage of a person at an exit or entrance to the campus or property or preventing or attempting to prevent by force or violence or by threats of force or violence the ingress or egress of a person to or from the property or campus without the authorization of the administration of the school. (c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor. (d) Any person who is convicted the third time of violating this section is ineligible to attend any institution of higher education receiving funds from this state before the second anniversary of the third conviction. (e) This section may not be construed to infringe on any right of free speech or expression guaranteed by the constitution of the United States or of this state. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.124. Disruption of Classes. (a) A person commits an offense if the person, on school property or on public property within 500 feet of school property, alone or in concert with others, intentionally disrupts the conduct of classes or other school activities. (b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor. (c) In this section: (1) “Disrupting the conduct of classes or other school activities” includes: (A) emitting noise of an intensity that prevents or hinders classroom instruction; (B) enticing or attempting to entice a student away from a class or other school activity that the student is required to attend; (C) preventing or attempting to prevent a student from attending a class or other school activity that the student is required to attend; and (D) entering a classroom without the consent of either the principal or the teacher and, through either acts of misconduct or the use of loud or profane language, disrupting class activities.

Appendix 2

(2) “Public property” includes a street, highway, alley, public park, or sidewalk. (3) “School property” includes a public school campus or school grounds on which a public school is located and any grounds or buildings used by a school for an assembly or other school-sponsored activity. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.125. Exhibition of Firearms. (a) A person commits an offense if, in a manner intended to cause alarm or personal injury to another person or to damage school property, the person intentionally exhibits, uses, or threatens to exhibit or use a firearm: (1) in or on any property, including a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area, that is owned by a private or public school; or (2) on a school bus being used to transport children to or from schoolsponsored activities of a private or public school. (b) An offense under this section is a third degree felony. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 704, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007. Sec. 37.126. Disruption of Transportation. (a) Except as provided by Section 37.125, a person commits an offense if the person intentionally disrupts, prevents, or interferes with the lawful transportation of children to or from school or an activity sponsored by a school on a vehicle owned or operated by a county or independent school district. (b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Subchapter F. Hazing Sec. 37.151. Definitions. In this subchapter: (1) “Educational institution” includes a public or private high school. (2) “Pledge” means any person who has been accepted by, is considering an offer of membership from, or is in the process of qualifying for membership in an organization.

615

616

Appendix 2

(3) “Pledging” means any action or activity related to becoming a member of an organization. (4) “Student” means any person who: (A) is registered in or in attendance at an educational institution; (B) has been accepted for admission at the educational institution where the hazing incident occurs; or (C) intends to attend an educational institution during any of its regular sessions after a period of scheduled vacation. (5) “Organization” means a fraternity, sorority, association, corporation, order, society, corps, club, or service, social, or similar group, whose members are primarily students. (6) “Hazing” means any intentional, knowing, or reckless act, occurring on or off the campus of an educational institution, by one person alone or acting with others, directed against a student, that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of pledging, being initiated into, affiliating with, holding office in, or maintaining membership in an organization. The term includes: (A) any type of physical brutality, such as whipping, beating, striking, branding, electronic shocking, placing of a harmful substance on the body, or similar activity; (B) any type of physical activity, such as sleep deprivation, exposure to the elements, confinement in a small space, calisthenics, or other activity that subjects the student to an unreasonable risk of harm or that adversely affects the mental or physical health or safety of the student; (C) any activity involving consumption of a food, liquid, alcoholic beverage, liquor, drug, or other substance that subjects the student to an unreasonable risk of harm or that adversely affects the mental or physical health or safety of the student; (D) any activity that intimidates or threatens the student with ostracism, that subjects the student to extreme mental stress, shame, or humiliation, that adversely affects the mental health or dignity of the student or discourages the student from entering or remaining registered in an educational institution, or that may reasonably be expected to cause a student to leave the organization or the institution rather than submit to acts described in this subdivision; and (E) any activity that induces, causes, or requires the student to perform a duty or task that involves a violation of the Penal Code. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995.

Appendix 2

Sec. 37.152. Personal Hazing Offense. (a) A person commits an offense if the person: (1) engages in hazing; (2) solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid another in engaging in hazing; (3) recklessly permits hazing to occur; or (4) has firsthand knowledge of the planning of a specific hazing incident involving a student in an educational institution, or has firsthand knowledge that a specific hazing incident has occurred, and knowingly fails to report that knowledge in writing to the dean of students or other appropriate official of the institution. (b) The offense of failing to report is a Class B misdemeanor. (c) Any other offense under this section that does not cause serious bodily injury to another is a Class B misdemeanor. (d) Any other offense under this section that causes serious bodily injury to another is a Class A misdemeanor. (e) Any other offense under this section that causes the death of another is a state jail felony. (f) Except if an offense causes the death of a student, in sentencing a person convicted of an offense under this section, the court may require the person to perform community service, subject to the same conditions imposed on a person placed on community supervision under Section 11, Article 42.12, Code of Criminal Procedure, for an appropriate period of time in lieu of confinement in county jail or in lieu of a part of the time the person is sentenced to confinement in county jail. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.153. Organization Hazing Offense. (a) An organization commits an offense if the organization condones or encourages hazing or if an officer or any combination of members, pledges, or alumni of the organization commits or assists in the commission of hazing. (b) An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by: (1) a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000; or (2) if the court finds that the offense caused personal injury, property damage, or other loss, a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than double the amount lost or expenses incurred because of the injury, damage, or loss. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995.

617

618

Appendix 2

Sec. 37.154. Consent Not a Defense. It is not a defense to prosecution of an offense under this subchapter that the person against whom the hazing was directed consented to or acquiesced in the hazing activity. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.155. Immunity from Prosecution Available. In the prosecution of an offense under this subchapter, the court may grant immunity from prosecution for the offense to each person who is subpoenaed to testify for the prosecution and who does testify for the prosecution. Any person reporting a specific hazing incident involving a student in an educational institution to the dean of students or other appropriate official of the institution is immune from civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be incurred or imposed as a result of the report. Immunity extends to participation in any judicial proceeding resulting from the report. A person reporting in bad faith or with malice is not protected by this section. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.156. Offenses in Addition to Other Penal Provisions. This subchapter does not affect or repeal any penal law of this state. This subchapter does not limit or affect the right of an educational institution to enforce its own penalties against hazing. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Sec. 37.157. Reporting by Medical Authorities. A doctor or other medical practitioner who treats a student who may have been subjected to hazing activities: (1) may report the suspected hazing activities to police or other law enforcement officials; and (2) is immune from civil or other liability that might otherwise be imposed or incurred as a result of the report, unless the report is made in bad faith or with malice. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995. Subchapter G. Texas School Safety Center Sec. 37.201. Definition. In this subchapter, “center” means the Texas School Safety Center. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 923, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Appendix 2

Sec. 37.202. Purpose. The purpose of the center is to serve as: (1) a central location for school safety and security information, including research, training, and technical assistance related to successful school safety and security programs; (2) a central registry of persons providing school safety and security consulting services in the state; and (3) a resource for the prevention of youth violence and the promotion of safety in the state. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 923, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Amended by: Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1280, Sec. 6.04, eff. September 1, 2009. Sec. 37.203. Board. (a) The center is advised by a board of directors composed of: (1) the attorney general, or the attorney general’s designee; (2) the commissioner, or the commissioner’s designee; (3) the executive director of the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission, or the executive director’s designee; (4) the executive commissioner of the Texas Youth Commission, or the executive commissioner’s designee; (5) the commissioner of the Department of State Health Services, or the commissioner’s designee; (6) the commissioner of higher education, or the commissioner’s designee; and (7) the following members appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the senate: (A) a juvenile court judge; (B) a member of a school district’s board of trustees; (C) an administrator of a public primary school; (D) an administrator of a public secondary school; (E) a member of the state parent–teacher association; (F) a teacher from a public primary or secondary school; (G) a public school superintendent who is a member of the Texas Association of School Administrators;

619

620

Appendix 2

(H) a school district police officer or a peace officer whose primary duty consists of working in a public school; and (I) two members of the public. (b) Members of the board appointed under Subsection (a)(7) serve staggered two-year terms, with the terms of the members described by Subsections (a)(7)(A)-(E) expiring on February 1 of each odd-numbered year and the terms of the members described by Subsections (a)(7)(F)-(I) expiring on February 1 of each even-numbered year. A member may serve more than one term. (c) The board may form committees as necessary. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 923, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 780, Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2005. Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 258, Sec. 3.03, eff. September 1, 2007. Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 263, Sec. 4, eff. June 8, 2007. Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 87, Sec. 7.005, eff. September 1, 2009. Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1280, Sec. 6.05, eff. September 1, 2009. Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1280, Sec. 6.06, eff. September 1, 2009. Sec. 37.204. Officers; Meetings; Compensation. (a) The board shall annually elect from among its members a chairperson and a vice chairperson. (b) The board shall meet at least four times each year. (c) A member of the board may not receive compensation but is entitled to reimbursement of the travel expenses incurred by the member while conducting the business of the board as provided by the General Appropriations Act. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 923, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Sec. 37.205. Safety Training Programs. The center shall conduct for school districts a safety training program that includes: (1) development of a positive school environment and proactive safety measures designed to address local concerns; (2) school safety courses for law enforcement officials, with a focus on school district police officers and school resource officers;

Appendix 2

(3) discussion of school safety issues with parents and community members; and (4) assistance in developing a multihazard emergency operations plan for adoption under Section 37.108. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 923, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 780, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2005. Sec. 37.2051. Security Criteria for Instructional Facilities. The center shall develop security criteria that school districts may consider in the design of instructional facilities. Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 780, Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2005. Sec. 37.207. Model Safety and Security Audit Procedure. (a) The center shall develop a model safety and security audit procedure for use by school districts and public junior college districts that includes: (1) providing each district with guidelines showing proper audit procedures; (2) reviewing elements of each district audit and making recommendations for improvements in the state based on that review; and (3) incorporating the findings of district audits in a statewide report on school safety and security made available by the center to the public. (b) Each school district shall report the results of its audits to the center in the manner required by the center. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 923, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Amended by: Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 258, Sec. 3.04, eff. September 1, 2007. Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1280, Sec. 6.07, eff. September 1, 2009. Sec. 37.208. On-Site Assistance. On request of a school district, the center may provide on-site technical assistance to the district for: (1) school safety and security audits; and (2) school safety and security information and presentations. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 923, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 780, Sec. 5, eff. September 1, 2005.

621

622

Appendix 2

Sec. 37.209. Center Website. The center shall develop and maintain an interactive Internet website that includes: (1) quarterly news updates related to school safety and security and violence prevention; (2) school crime data; (3) a schedule of training and special events; and (4) a list of persons who provide school safety or security consulting services in this state and are registered in accordance with Section 37.2091. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 923, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Amended by: Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1280, Sec. 6.08, eff. September 1, 2009. Sec. 37.2091. Registry of Persons Providing School Safety or Security Consulting Services. (a) In this section, “school safety or security consulting services” includes any service provided to a school district, institution of higher education, district facility, or campus by a person consisting of advice, information, recommendations, data collection, or safety and security audit services relevant to school safety and security, regardless of whether the person is paid for those services. (b) The center shall establish a registry of persons providing school safety or security consulting services in this state. (c) Each person providing school safety or security consulting services in this state shall register with the center in accordance with requirements established by the center. The requirements must include provisions requiring a person registering with the center to provide information regarding: (1) the person’s background, education, and experience that are relevant to the person’s ability to provide knowledgeable and effective school safety or security consulting services; and (2) any complaints or pending litigation relating to the person’s provision of school safety or security consulting services. (d) The registry is intended to serve only as an informational resource for school districts and institutions of higher education. The inclusion of a person in the registry is not an indication of the person’s qualifications or ability to provide school safety or security consulting services or that the center endorses the person’s school safety or security consulting services.

Appendix 2

(e) The center shall include information regarding the registry, including the number of persons registered and the general degree of school safety or security experience possessed by those persons, in the biennial report required by Section 37.216. Added by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1280, Sec. 6.09, eff. September 1, 2009. Sec. 37.211. Recognition of Schools. The center shall provide for the public recognition of schools that implement effective school safety measures and violence prevention. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 923, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Sec. 37.212. Interagency Cooperation. The center shall promote cooperation between state agencies, institutions of higher education, and any local juvenile delinquency prevention councils to address discipline and safety issues in the state. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 923, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Sec. 37.2121. Memoranda of Understanding and Mutual Aid Agreements. (a) The center shall identify and inform school districts of the types of entities, including local and regional authorities, other school districts, and emergency first responders, with whom school districts should customarily make efforts to enter into memoranda of understanding or mutual aid agreements addressing issues that affect school safety and security. (b) The center shall develop guidelines regarding memoranda of understanding and mutual aid agreements between school districts and the entities identified in accordance with Subsection (a). The guidelines: (1) must include descriptions of the provisions that should customarily be included in each memorandum or agreement with a particular type of entity; (2) may include sample language for those provisions; and (3) must be consistent with the Texas Statewide Mutual Aid System established under Subchapter E-1, Chapter 418, Government Code. (c) The center shall encourage school districts to enter into memoranda of understanding and mutual aid agreements with entities identified in accordance with Subsection (a) that comply with the guidelines developed under Subsection (b). (d) Each school district that enters into a memorandum of understanding or mutual aid agreement addressing issues that affect school safety and

623

624

Appendix 2

security shall, at the center’s request, provide the following information to the center: (1) the name of each entity with which the school district has entered into a memorandum of understanding or mutual aid agreement; (2) the effective date of each memorandum or agreement; and (3) a summary of each memorandum or agreement. (e) The center shall include information regarding the center’s efforts under this section in the report required by Section 37.216. Added by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1280, Sec. 6.09, eff. September 1, 2009. Sec. 37.213. Public Junior Colleges. (a) In this section, “public junior college” has the meaning assigned by Section 61.003. (b) The center shall research best practices regarding emergency preparedness of public junior colleges and serve as a clearinghouse for that information. (c) The center shall provide public junior colleges with training, technical assistance, and published guidelines or templates, as appropriate, in the following areas: (1) multihazard emergency operations plan development; (2) drill and exercise development and implementation; (3) mutual aid agreements; (4) identification of equipment and funds that may be used by public junior colleges in an emergency; and (5) reporting in accordance with 20 U.S.C. Section 1092(f). Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 258, Sec. 3.05, eff. September 1, 2007. Amended by: Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1280, Sec. 6.10, eff. September 1, 2009. Sec. 37.214. Authority to Accept Certain Funds. The center may solicit and accept gifts, grants, and donations from public and private entities to use for the purposes of this subchapter. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 923, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Sec. 37.215. Budget. (a) The board shall annually approve a budget for the center. (b) The center shall biannually prepare a budget request for submission to the legislature.

Appendix 2

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 923, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 780, Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2005. Sec. 37.216. Biennial Report. (a) Not later than January 1 of each odd-numbered year, the board shall provide a report to the governor, the legislature, the State Board of Education, and the agency. (b) The biennial report must include any findings made by the center regarding school safety and security and the center’s functions, budget information, and strategic planning initiatives of the center. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 923, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Amended by: Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1280, Sec. 6.11, eff. September 1, 2009. Sec. 37.2161. School Safety And Security Progress Report. (a) The center shall periodically provide a school safety and security progress report to the governor, the legislature, the State Board of Education, and the agency that contains current information regarding school safety and security in the school districts and public junior college districts of this state based on: (1) elements of each district’s multihazard emergency operations plan required by Section 37.108(a); (2) elements of each district’s safety and security audit required by Section 37.108(b); and (3) any other report required to be submitted to the center. (b) The center shall establish guidelines regarding the specific information to be included in the report required by this section. (c) The center may provide the report required by this section in conjunction with the report required by Section 37.216. Added by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1280, Sec. 6.12, eff. September 1, 2009. Sec. 37.217. Community Education Relating to Internet Safety. (a) The center, in cooperation with the attorney general, shall develop a program that provides instruction concerning Internet safety, including instruction relating to:

625

626

Appendix 2

(1) the potential dangers of allowing personal information to appear on an Internet website; (2) the manner in which to report an inappropriate online solicitation; and (3) the prevention, detection, and reporting of bullying or threats occurring over the Internet. (b) In developing the program, the center shall: (1) solicit input from interested stakeholders; and (2) to the extent practicable, draw from existing resources and programs. (c) The center shall make the program available to public schools. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 343, Sec. 1, eff. June 15, 2007. Subchapter I. Placement of Registered Sex Offenders Sec. 37.301. Definition. In this subchapter, “board of trustees” includes the board’s designee. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1240, Sec. 3, eff. June 15, 2007. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1291, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007. Sec. 37.302. Applicability. This subchapter: (1) applies to a student who is required to register as a sex offender under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure; and (2) does not apply to a student who is no longer required to register as a sex offender under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure, including a student who receives an exemption from registration under Subchapter H, Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure, or a student who receives an early termination of the obligation to register under Subchapter I, Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1240, Sec. 3, eff. June 15, 2007. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1291, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007. Sec. 37.303. Removal of Registered Sex Offender from Regular Classroom. Notwithstanding any provision of Subchapter A, on receiving notice under Article 15.27, Code of Criminal Procedure, or Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure, that a student is required to register as a sex offender under that chapter, a school

Appendix 2

district shall remove the student from the regular classroom and determine the appropriate placement of the student in the manner provided by this subchapter. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1240, Sec. 3, eff. June 15, 2007. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1291, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007. Sec. 37.304. Placement of Registered Sex Offender Who Is Under Court Supervision. (a) A school district shall place a student to whom this subchapter applies and who is under any form of court supervision, including probation, community supervision, or parole, in the appropriate alternative education program as provided by Section 37.309 for at least one semester. (b) If a student transfers to another school district during the student’s mandatory placement in an alternative education program under Subsection (a), the district to which the student transfers may: (1) require the student to complete an additional semester in the appropriate alternative education program without conducting a review of the student’s placement for that semester under Section 37.306; or (2) count any time spent by the student in an alternative education program in the district from which the student transfers toward the mandatory placement requirement under Subsection (a). Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1240, Sec. 3, eff. June 15, 2007. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1291, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007. Sec. 37.305. Placement of Registered Sex Offender Who Is Not Under Court Supervision. A school district may place a student to whom this subchapter applies and who is not under any form of court supervision in the appropriate alternative education program as provided by Section 37.309 for one semester or in the regular classroom. The district may not place the student in the regular classroom if the district board of trustees determines that the student’s presence in the regular classroom: (1) threatens the safety of other students or teachers; (2) will be detrimental to the educational process; or (3) is not in the best interests of the district’s students. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1240, Sec. 3, eff. June 15, 2007. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1291, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.

627

628

Appendix 2

Sec. 37.306. Review of Placement in Alternative Education Program. (a) At the end of the first semester of a student’s placement in an alternative education program under Section 37.304 or 37.305, the school district board of trustees shall convene a committee to review the student’s placement in the alternative education program. The committee must be composed of: (1) a classroom teacher from the campus to which the student would be assigned were the student not placed in an alternative education program; (2) the student’s parole or probation officer or, in the case of a student who does not have a parole or probation officer, a representative of the local juvenile probation department; (3) an instructor from the alternative education program to which the student is assigned; (4) a school district designee selected by the board of trustees; and (5) a counselor employed by the school district. (b) The committee by majority vote shall determine and recommend to the school district board of trustees whether the student should be returned to the regular classroom or remain in the alternative education program. (c) If the committee recommends that the student be returned to the regular classroom, the board of trustees shall return the student to the regular classroom unless the board determines that the student’s presence in the regular classroom: (1) threatens the safety of other students or teachers; (2) will be detrimental to the educational process; or (3) is not in the best interests of the district’s students. (d) If the committee recommends that the student remain in the alternative education program, the board of trustees shall continue the student’s placement in the alternative education program unless the board determines that the student’s presence in the regular classroom: (1) does not threaten the safety of other students or teachers; (2) will not be detrimental to the educational process; and (3) is not contrary to the best interests of the district’s students. (e) If, after receiving a recommendation under Subsection (b), the school district board of trustees determines that the student should remain in an alternative education program, the board shall before the beginning of each school year convene the committee described by Subsection (a) to review, in the manner provided by Subsections (b), (c), and (d), the student’s placement in an alternative education program.

Appendix 2

Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1240, Sec. 3, eff. June 15, 2007. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1291, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007. Sec. 37.307. Placement and Review of Student with Disability. (a) The placement under this subchapter of a student with a disability who receives special education services must be made in compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. Section 1400 et seq.). (b) The review under Section 37.306 of the placement of a student with a disability who receives special education services may be made only by a duly constituted admission, review, and dismissal committee. The admission, review, and dismissal committee may request that the board of trustees convene a committee described by Section 37.306(a) to assist the admission, review, and dismissal committee in conducting the review. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1240, Sec. 3, eff. June 15, 2007. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1291, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007. Sec. 37.308. Transfer of Registered Sex Offender. Except as provided by Section 37.304(b), a school district shall determine whether to place a student to whom this subchapter applies and who transfers to the district in the appropriate alternative education program as provided by Section 37.309 or in a regular classroom. The school district shall follow the procedures specified under Section 37.306 in making the determination. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1240, Sec. 3, eff. June 15, 2007. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1291, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007. Sec. 37.309. Placement in Disciplinary Alternative Education Program or Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a school district shall place a student who is required by the board of trustees to attend an alternative education program under this subchapter in a disciplinary alternative education program. (b) A school district shall place a student who is required by the board of trustees to attend an alternative education program under this subchapter in a juvenile justice alternative education program if: (1) the memorandum of understanding entered into between the school district and juvenile board under Section 37.011(k) provides for the placement of students to whom this subchapter applies in the juvenile justice alternative education program; or

629

630

Appendix 2

(2) a court orders the placement of the student in a juvenile justice alternative education program. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1240, Sec. 3, eff. June 15, 2007. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1291, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007. Sec. 37.310. Funding for Registered Sex Offender Placed in Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program. A juvenile justice alternative education program is entitled to funding for a student who is placed in the program under this subchapter in the same manner as a juvenile justice alternative education program is entitled to funding under Section 37.012 for a student who is expelled and placed in a juvenile justice alternative education program for conduct for which expulsion is permitted but not required under Section 37.007. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1240, Sec. 3, eff. June 15, 2007. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1291, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007. Sec. 37.311. Conference. (a) A student or the student’s parent or guardian may appeal a decision by a school district board of trustees to place the student in an alternative education program under this subchapter by requesting a conference among the board of trustees, the student’s parent or guardian, and the student. The conference is limited to the factual question of whether the student is required to register as a sex offender under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure. (b) If the school district board of trustees determines at the conclusion of the conference that the student is required to register as a sex offender under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure, the student is subject to placement in an alternative education program in the manner provided by this subchapter. (c) A decision by the board of trustees under this section is final and may not be appealed. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1240, Sec. 3, eff. June 15, 2007. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1291, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007. Sec. 37.312. Liability. This subchapter does not: (1) waive any liability or immunity of a governmental entity or its officers or employees; or

Appendix 2

(2) create any liability for or a cause of action against a governmental entity or its officers or employees. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1240, Sec. 3, eff. June 15, 2007. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1291, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007. Sec. 37.313. Conflicts of Law. To the extent of any conflict between a provision of this subchapter and a provision of Subchapter A, this subchapter prevails. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1240, Sec. 3, eff. June 15, 2007. Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1291, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007. Source: Document available at http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ED/htm/ ED.37.htm

631

This page intentionally left blank

Appendix 3: Primary Source Documents: Sample Legislation: Colleges and Universities

At the college/university level, legislation has been enacted to require institutions of higher education to institute campus sexual assault prevention and reporting programs. Following is the wording of one such statute. Statute Text-20 USC § 1092 (f)(8) (A) Each institution of higher education participating in any program under this subchapter and part C of subchapter I of chapter 34 of Title 42 shall develop and distribute as part of the report described in paragraph (1) a statement of policy regarding— (i) such institution’s campus sexual assault programs, which shall be aimed at prevention of sex offenses; and (ii) the procedures followed once a sex offense has occurred. (B) The policy described in subparagraph (A) shall address the following areas: (i) Education programs to promote the awareness of rape, acquaintance rape, and other sex offenses. (ii) Possible sanctions to be imposed following the final determination of an on-campus disciplinary procedure regarding rape, acquaintance rape, or other sex offenses, forcible or nonforcible. (iii) Procedures students should follow if a sex offense occurs, including who should be contacted, the importance of preserving evidence as may be necessary to the proof of criminal sexual assault, and to whom the alleged offense should be reported. (iv) Procedures for on-campus disciplinary action in cases of alleged sexual assault, which shall include a clear statement that— (I) the accuser and the accused are entitled to the same opportunities to have others present during a campus disciplinary proceeding; and

633

634

Appendix 3

(II) both the accuser and the accused shall be informed of the outcome of any campus disciplinary proceeding brought alleging a sexual assault. (v) Informing students of their options to notify proper law enforcement authorities, including on-campus and local police, and the option to be assisted by campus authorities in notifying such authorities, if the student so chooses. (vii) Notification of students of options for, and available assistance in, changing academic and living situations after an alleged sexual assault incident, if so requested by the victim and if such changes are reasonably available. (C) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to confer a private right of action upon any person to enforce the provisions of this paragraph. Implementing Regulations-34 CFR § 668.46 (b)(11) Annual security report. An institution must prepare an annual security report that contains, at a minimum, the following information: (1) (11) A statement of policy regarding the institution’s campus sexual assault programs to prevent sex offenses, and procedures to follow when a sex offense occurs. The statement must include— (i) A description of educational programs to promote the awareness of rape, acquaintance rape, and other forcible and nonforcible sex offenses; (ii) Procedures students should follow if a sex offense occurs, including procedures concerning who should be contacted, the importance of preserving evidence for the proof of a criminal offense, and to whom the alleged offense should be reported; (iii) Information on a student’s option to notify appropriate law enforcement authorities, including on-campus and local police, and a statement that institutional personnel will assist the student in notifying these authorities, if the student requests the assistance of these personnel; (iv) Notification to students of existing on- and off-campus counseling, mental health, or other student services for victims of sex offenses; (v) Notification to students that the institution will change a victim’s academic and living situations after an alleged sex offense and of the options for those changes, if those changes are requested by the victim and are reasonably available;

Appendix 3

(vi) Procedures for campus disciplinary action in cases of an alleged sex offense, including a clear statement that— (A) The accuser and the accused are entitled to the same opportunities to have others present during a disciplinary proceeding; and (B) Both the accuser and the accused must be informed of the outcome of any institutional disciplinary proceeding brought alleging a sex offense. Compliance with this paragraph does not constitute a violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g). For the purpose of this paragraph, the outcome of a disciplinary proceeding means only the institution’s final determination with respect to the alleged sex offense and any sanction that is imposed against the accused; and (vii) Sanctions the institution may impose following a final determination of an institutional disciplinary proceeding regarding rape, acquaintance rape, or other forcible or nonforcible sex offenses. Source: Available at http://www.securityoncampus.org/index.php?option=com _content&view=article&id=133&Itemid=27 §§§§ The Jeanne Clery Act required that institutions of higher education report to students, faculty, staff. and the general public about crime occurring on campus. Following is the wording of this legislation, as well as the revisions enacted in 2008. Jeanne Clery Act Text As Amended Through 2008 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f) Disclosure of campus security policy and campus crime statistics (1) Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title, other than a foreign institution higher education, shall on August 1, 1991, begin to collect the following information with respect to campus crime statistics and campus security policies of that institution, and beginning September 1, 1992, and each year thereafter, prepare, publish, and distribute, through appropriate publications or mailings, to all current students and employees, and to any applicant for enrollment or employment upon request, an annual security report containing at least the following information with respect to the campus security policies and campus crime statistics of that institution: (A) A statement of current campus policies regarding procedures and facilities for students and others to report criminal actions or other

635

636

Appendix 3

(B)

(C)

(D)

(E) (F)

emergencies occurring on campus and policies concerning the institution’s response to such reports. A statement of current policies concerning security and access to campus facilities, including campus residences, and security considerations used in the maintenance of campus facilities. A statement of current policies concerning campus law enforcement, including— (i) the law enforcement authority of campus security personnel; (ii) the working relationship of campus security personnel with State and local law enforcement agencies, including whether the institution has agreements with such agencies, such as written memoranda of understanding, for the investigation of alleged criminal offenses; and (iii) policies which encourage accurate and prompt reporting of all crimes to the campus police and the appropriate law enforcement agencies. A description of the type and frequency of programs designed to inform students and employees about campus security procedures and practices and to encourage students and employees to be responsible for their own security and the security of others. A description of programs designed to inform students and employees about the prevention of crimes. Statistics concerning the occurrence on campus, in or on noncampus buildings or property, and on public property during the most recent calendar year, and during the 2 preceding calendar years for which data are available— (i) of the following criminal offenses reported to campus security authorities or local police agencies: (I) murder; (II) sex offenses, forcible or nonforcible; (III) robbery; (IV) aggravated assault; (V) burglary; (VI) motor vehicle theft; (VII) manslaughter; (VIII) arson; and

Appendix 3

(G)

(H)

(I)

(J)

(IX) arrests or persons referred for campus disciplinary action for liquor law violations, drug-related violations, and weapons possession; and (ii) of the crimes described in subclauses (I) through (VIII) of clause (i), of larceny-theft, simple assault, intimidation, and destruction, damage, or vandalism of property, and of other crimes involving bodily injury to any person, in which the victim is intentionally selected because of the actual or perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability of the victim that are reported to campus security authorities or local police agencies, which data shall be collected and reported according to category of prejudice. A statement of policy concerning the monitoring and recording through local police agencies of criminal activity at off-campus student organizations which are recognized by the institution and that are engaged in by students attending the institution, including those student organizations with off-campus housing facilities. A statement of policy regarding the possession, use, and sale of alcoholic beverages and enforcement of State underage drinking laws and a statement of policy regarding the possession, use, and sale of illegal drugs and enforcement of Federal and State drug laws and a description of any drug or alcohol abuse education programs as required under section 120 of this Act [20 USCS § 1011i]. A statement advising the campus community where law enforcement agency information provided by a State under section 170101(j) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14071(j)), concerning registered sex offenders may be obtained, such as the law enforcement office of the institution, a local law enforcement agency with jurisdiction for the campus, or a computer network address. A statement of current campus policies regarding immediate emergency response and evacuation procedures, including the use of electronic and cellular communication (if appropriate), which policies shall include procedures to(i) immediately notify the campus community upon the confirmation of a significant emergency or dangerous situation involving an immediate threat to the health or safety of students or staff occurring on the campus, as defined in paragraph (6), unless issuing a notification will compromise efforts to contain the emergency; (ii) publicize emergency response and evacuation procedures on an annual basis in a manner designed to reach students and staff; and

637

638

Appendix 3

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(iii) test emergency response and evacuation procedures on an annual basis. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to require particular policies, procedures, or practices by institutions of higher education with respect to campus crimes or campus security. Each institution participating in any program under this title shall make timely reports to the campus community on crimes considered to be a threat to other students and employees described in paragraph (1)(F) that are reported to campus security or local law police agencies. Such reports shall be provided to students and employees in a manner that is timely and that will aid in the prevention of similar occurrences. (A) Each institution participating in any program under this title that maintains a police or security department of any kind shall make, keep, and maintain a daily log, written in a form that can be easily understood, recording all crimes reported to such police or security department, including— (i) the nature, date, time, and general location of each crime; and (ii) the disposition of the complaint, if known. (B) (i) All entries that are required pursuant to this paragraph shall, except where disclosure of such information is prohibited by law or such disclosure would jeopardize the confidentiality of the victim, be open to public inspection within two business days of the initial report being made to the department or a campus security authority. (ii) If new information about an entry into a log becomes available to a police or security department, then the new information shall be recorded in the log not later than two business days after the information becomes available to the police or security department. (iii) If there is clear and convincing evidence that the release of such information would jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation or the safety of an individual, cause a suspect to flee or evade detection, or result in the destruction of evidence, such information may be withheld until that damage is no longer likely to occur from the release of such information On an annual basis, each institution participating in any program under this title shall submit to the Secretary a copy of the statistics required to be made available under paragraph (1)(F). The Secretary shall— (A) review such statistics and report on campus crime statistics by September 1, 2000;

Appendix 3

(B) make copies of the statistics submitted to the Secretary available to the public; and (C) in coordination with representatives of institutions of higher education, identify exemplary campus security policies, procedures, and practices and disseminate information concerning those policies, procedures, and practices that have proven effective in the reduction of campus crime. (6) (A) In this subsection: (i) The term “campus” means— (I) any building or property owned or controlled by an institution of higher education within the same reasonably contiguous geographic area of the institution and used by the institution in direct support of, or in a manner related to, the institution’s educational purposes, including residence halls; and (II) property within the same reasonably contiguous geographic area of the institution that is owned by the institution but controlled by another person, is used by students, and supports institutional purposes (such as a food or other retail vendor). (ii) The term “noncampus building or property” means— (I) any building or property owned or controlled by a student organization recognized by the institution; and (II) any building or property (other than a branch campus) owned or controlled by an institution of higher education that is used in direct support of, or in relation to, the institution’s educational purposes, is used by students, and is not within the same reasonably contiguous geographic area of the institution. (iii) The term “public property” means all public property that is within the same reasonably contiguous geographic area of the institution, such as a sidewalk, a street, other thoroughfare, or parking facility, and is adjacent to a facility owned or controlled by the institution if the facility is used by the institution in direct support of, or in a manner related to the institution’s educational purposes. (B) In cases where branch campuses of an institution of higher education, schools within an institution of higher education, or administrative divisions within an institution are not within a reasonably contiguous

639

640

Appendix 3

geographic area, such entities shall be considered separate campuses for purposes of the reporting requirements of this section. (7) The statistics described in paragraphs (1)(F) shall be compiled in accordance with the definitions used in the uniform crime reporting system of the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the modifications in such definitions as implemented pursuant to the Hate Crime Statistics Act [28 USCS § 534 note]. Such statistics shall not identify victims of crimes or persons accused of crimes. (8) (A) Each institution of higher education participating in any program under this title shall develop and distribute as part of the report described in paragraph (1) a statement of policy regarding— (i) such institution’s campus sexual assault programs, which shall be aimed at prevention of sex offenses; and (ii) the procedures followed once a sex offense has occurred. (B) The policy described in subparagraph shall address the following areas: (i) Education programs to promote the awareness of rape, acquaintance rape, and other sex offenses. (ii) Possible sanctions to be imposed following the final determination of an on-campus disciplinary procedure regarding rape, acquaintance rape, or other sex offenses, forcible or nonforcible. (iii) Procedures students should follow if a sex offense occurs, including who should be contacted, the importance of preserving evidence as may be necessary to the proof of criminal sexual assault, and to whom the alleged offense should be reported. (iv) Procedures for on-campus disciplinary action in cases of alleged sexual assault, which shall include a clear statement that— (I) the accuser and the accused are entitled to the same opportunities to have others present during a campus disciplinary proceeding; and (II) both the accuser and the accused shall be informed of the outcome of any campus disciplinary proceeding brought alleging a sexual assault. (v) Informing students of their options to notify proper law enforcement authorities, including on-campus and local police, and the option to be assisted by campus authorities in notifying such authorities, if the student so chooses.

Appendix 3

(9)

(10) (11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(vi) Notification of students of existing counseling, mental health or student services for victims of sexual assault, both on campus and in the community. (vii) Notification of students of options for, and available assistance in, changing academic and living situations after an alleged sexual assault incident, if so requested by the victim and if such changes are reasonably available. (C) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to confer a private right of action upon any person to enforce the provisions of this paragraph. The Secretary shall provide technical assistance in complying with the provisions of this section to an institution of higher education who requests such assistance. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the reporting or disclosure of privileged information. The Secretary shall report to the appropriate committees of Congress each institution of higher education that the Secretary determines is not in compliance with the reporting requirements of this subsection. For purposes of reporting the statistics with respect to crimes described in paragraph (1)(F), an institution of higher education shall distinguish, by means of separate categories, any criminal offenses that occur— (A) on campus; (B) in or on a noncampus building or property; (C) on public property; and (D) in dormitories or other residential facilities for students on campus. Upon a determination pursuant to section 487(c)(3)(B) [20 USCS § 1094 (c)(3)(B)] that an institution of higher education has substantially misrepresented the number, location, or nature of the crimes required to be reported under this subsection, the Secretary shall impose a civil penalty upon the institution in the same amount and pursuant to the same procedures as a civil penalty is imposed under section 487(c)(3)(B) [20 USCS § 1094(c) (3)(B)]. (A) Nothing in this subsection may be construed to— (i) create a cause of action against any institution of higher education or any employee of such an institution for any civil liability; or (ii) establish any standard of care. (B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with this subsection shall not be

641

642

Appendix 3

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

admissible as evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or other entity, except with respect to an action to enforce this subsection. The Secretary shall annually report to the authorizing committees regarding compliance with this subsection by institutions of higher education, including an up-to-date report on the Secretary’s monitoring of such compliance. The Secretary may seek the advice and counsel of the Attorney General concerning the development, and dissemination to institutions of higher education, of best practices information about campus safety and emergencies. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit an institution, or an officer, employee, or agent of an institution, participating in any program under this title to retaliate, intimidate, threaten, coerce, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the implementation of any provision of this subsection. This subsection may be cited as the “Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act.”

Source: Available at http://www.securityoncampus.org/index.php?option= com_content&view=article&id=318%3Ajeanne-clery-act-text&catid=64 %3Acleryact&Itemid=60

Appendix 4: U.S. Supreme Court Cases Related to School and Campus Crime and Violence

Bethel v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986): Fraser was sanctioned for delivering a speech before the student body in which he used a series of sexual innuendoes. The Supreme Court upheld his punishment in determining that schools may regulate student speech during school-sponsored events. Board of Education of Independent School District #92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls. 536 U.S. 822 (2002): The most recent case on school-based drug testing. The Court upheld the district’s policy requiring all students who wished to participate in extracurricular activities to submit to a urinalysis. Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999): The Court ruled that schools can be held legally liable for not responding to peerto-peer sexual harassment when they are aware it is occurring. Doe v. Renfrow, 451 U.S. 1022 (1979): An unannounced visit by drug-detecting canines resulted in the strip-search of a 13-year-old girl. The Court held that the strip search violated her Fourth Amendment right because the canine search was not reliable enough to make subsequent searches justified. Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998): School districts can be held liable under Title IX when there is deliberate indifference to teacher-on-student sexual harassment.

643

644

Appendix 4

Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) In this pivotal case, the Court determined that students must receive due process prior to being suspended or expelled. At minimum, students must be notified of the charges and given an opportunity to respond. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) Barbara Grutter challenged the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions policy, which she felt to be discriminatory. The Court held that diversity was a critical component of higher education and that institutions can lawfully include it as part of their admissions process. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1983) Hazelwood East High School principal edited two articles out of the school newspaper, deeming them inappropriate. The Court held that administrators can limit students’ free press when the outlet is a school-sponsored publication. Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) Eighteen-year-old Joseph Frederick was suspended for displaying a banner reading “BONG HITS 4 JESUS during the 2002 Olympic Torch Relay. The Court held that Principal Deborah Morse’s actions did not violate Frederick’s constitutional rights, as educators can suppress student speech at schoolsponsored events if it can be reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) The Court held that schools can search students based on reasonable suspicion, rather than having to obtain a search warrant. Searches must be justified at their inception and reasonable in scope. Safford v. Redding, 557 U.S. (2009) Savannah Redding was strip-searched by school officials based on information they had acquired from another student, who told officials Redding had ibuprofen pills she had not checked in at the school office. The search revealed no drugs. The court found this type of strip search to be in violation of Redding’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), 547 U.S. 47 (2006) The federal government can withhold funding from universities if those institutions refuse to allow military recruiters on campus. Several law schools had denied access to campus recruiters because they disapproved of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

Appendix 4

Tinker v. Des Moines. 393 U.S. 503 (1969): When three students wore black armbands to school to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, they were suspended for violating school policy. The Court sided with the students in holding that students have rights of expression within a public school. U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995): A 12th-grade student was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 when he carried a concealed handgun into his high school. Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995): The Court held that a school policy requiring all students engaged in extracurricular athletic programs to submit to random drug testing did not violate students’ Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

645

This page intentionally left blank

Appendix 5: U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Relevant to School Crime and Violence

One of the most recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings related to school crime and violence addressed the constitutionality of school-based drug testing of students involved in extracurricular activities. In Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatamie County et al. v. Lindsay Earls et al., the Court ruled that drug testing of all students involved in extracurricular activities was constitutional. Opinion of the Court NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 01-332 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, et al., PETITIONERS v. LINDSAY EARLS et al. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT [June 27, 2002]

647

648

Appendix 5

Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy implemented by the Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County (School District) requires all students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities to submit to drug testing. Because this Policy reasonably serves the School District’s important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students, we hold that it is constitutional. I The city of Tecumseh, Oklahoma, is a rural community located approximately 40 miles southeast of Oklahoma City. The School District administers all Tecumseh public schools. In the fall of 1998, the School District adopted the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy (Policy), which requires all middle and high school students to consent to drug testing in order to participate in any extracurricular activity. In practice, the Policy has been applied only to competitive extracurricular activities sanctioned by the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association, such as the Academic Team, Future Farmers of America, Future Homemakers of America, band, choir, pom pom, cheerleading, and athletics. Under the Policy, students are required to take a drug test before participating in an extracurricular activity, must submit to random drug testing while participating in that activity, and must agree to be tested at any time upon reasonable suspicion. The urinalysis tests are designed to detect only the use of illegal drugs, including amphetamines, marijuana, cocaine, opiates, and barbiturates, not medical conditions or the presence of authorized prescription medications. At the time of their suit, both respondents attended Tecumseh High School. Respondent Lindsay Earls was a member of the show choir, the marching band, the Academic Team, and the National Honor Society. Respondent Daniel James sought to participate in the Academic Team.1 Together with their parents, Earls and James brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the School District, challenging the Policy both on its face and as applied to their participation in extracurricular activities.2 They alleged that the Policy violates the Fourth Amendment as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and requested injunctive and declarative relief. They also argued that the School District failed to identify a special need for testing students

Appendix 5

who participate in extracurricular activities, and that the “Drug Testing Policy neither addresses a proven problem nor promises to bring any benefit to students or the school.” App. 9. Applying the principles articulated in Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995), in which we upheld the suspicionless drug testing of school athletes, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma rejected respondents’ claim that the Policy was unconstitutional and granted summary judgment to the School District. The court noted that “special needs” exist in the public school context and that, although the School District did “not show a drug problem of epidemic proportions,” there was a history of drug abuse starting in 1970 that presented “legitimate cause for concern.” 115 F. Supp. 2d 1281, 1287 (2000). The District Court also held that the Policy was effective because “[i]t can scarcely be disputed that the drug problem among the student body is effectively addressed by making sure that the large number of students participating in competitive, extracurricular activities do not use drugs.” Id., at 1295. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that the Policy violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that the Policy must be evaluated in the “unique environment of the school setting,” but reached a different conclusion as to the Policy’s constitutionality. 242 F.3d 1264, 1270 (2001). Before imposing a suspicionless drug testing program, the Court of Appeals concluded that a school “must demonstrate that there is some identifiable drug abuse problem among a sufficient number of those subject to the testing, such that testing that group of students will actually redress its drug problem.” Id., at 1278. The Court of Appeals then held that because the School District failed to demonstrate such a problem existed among Tecumseh students participating in competitive extracurricular activities, the Policy was unconstitutional. We granted certiorari, 534 U.S. 1015 (2001), and now reverse. II The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Searches by public school officials, such as the collection of urine samples, implicate Fourth Amendment interests. See Vernonia, supra, at 652; cf. New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325, 334 (1985). We must therefore

649

650

Appendix 5

review the School District’s Policy for “reasonableness,” which is the touchstone of the constitutionality of a governmental search. In the criminal context, reasonableness usually requires a showing of probable cause. See, e.g., Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U.S. 602, 619 (1989). The probable-cause standard, however, “is peculiarly related to criminal investigations” and may be unsuited to determining the reasonableness of administrative searches where the “Government seeks to prevent the development of hazardous conditions.” Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 667–668 (1989) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (collecting cases). The Court has also held that a warrant and finding of probable cause are unnecessary in the public school context because such requirements “ ‘would unduly interfere with the maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures [that are] needed.’ ” Vernonia, supra, at 653 (quoting T. L. O., supra, at 340–341). Given that the School District’s Policy is not in any way related to the conduct of criminal investigations, see Part II—B, infra, respondents do not contend that the School District requires probable cause before testing students for drug use. Respondents instead argue that drug testing must be based at least on some level of individualized suspicion. See Brief for Respondents 12–14. It is true that we generally determine the reasonableness of a search by balancing the nature of the intrusion on the individual’s privacy against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654 (1979). But we have long held that “the Fourth Amendment imposes no irreducible requirement of [individualized] suspicion.” United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 561 (1976). “[I]n certain limited circumstances, the Government’s need to discover such latent or hidden conditions, or to prevent their development, is sufficiently compelling to justify the intrusion on privacy entailed by conducting such searches without any measure of individualized suspicion.” Von Raab, supra, at 668; see also Skinner, supra, at 624. Therefore, in the context of safety and administrative regulations, a search unsupported by probable cause may be reasonable “when ‘special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.’ ” Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873 (1987) (quoting T. L. O., supra, at 351 (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment)); see also Vernonia, supra, at 653; Skinner, supra, at 619. Significantly, this Court has previously held that “special needs” inhere in the public school context. See Vernonia, supra, at 653;

Appendix 5

T. L. O., supra, at 339–340. While schoolchildren do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse, see Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969), “Fourth Amendment rights . . . are different in public schools than elsewhere; the ‘reasonableness’ inquiry cannot disregard the schools’ custodial and tutelary responsibility for children.” Vernonia, supra, at 656. In particular, a finding of individualized suspicion may not be necessary when a school conducts drug testing. In Vernonia, this Court held that the suspicionless drug testing of athletes was constitutional. The Court, however, did not simply authorize all school drug testing, but rather conducted a fact-specific balancing of the intrusion on the children’s Fourth Amendment rights against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests. See 515 U.S., at 652–653. Applying the principles of Vernonia to the somewhat different facts of this case, we conclude that Tecumseh’s Policy is also constitutional. A We first consider the nature of the privacy interest allegedly compromised by the drug testing. See id., at 654. As in Vernonia, the context of the public school environment serves as the backdrop for the analysis of the privacy interest at stake and the reasonableness of the drug testing policy in general. See ibid. (“Central . . . is the fact that the subjects of the Policy are (1) children, who (2) have been committed to the temporary custody of the State as schoolmaster”); see also id., at 665 (“The most significant element in this case is the first we discussed: that the Policy was undertaken in furtherance of the government’s responsibilities, under a public school system, as guardian and tutor of children entrusted to its care”); ibid. (“[W]hen the government acts as guardian and tutor the relevant question is whether the search is one that a reasonable guardian and tutor might undertake”). A student’s privacy interest is limited in a public school environment where the State is responsible for maintaining discipline, health, and safety. Schoolchildren are routinely required to submit to physical examinations and vaccinations against disease. See id., at 656. Securing order in the school environment sometimes requires that students be subjected to greater controls than those appropriate for adults. See T. L. O., supra, at 350 (Powell, J., concurring) (“Without first establishing discipline and maintaining order, teachers cannot begin to educate their students. And apart from education, the school has the obligation to protect pupils from mistreatment by other children, and

651

652

Appendix 5

also to protect teachers themselves from violence by the few students whose conduct in recent years has prompted national concern”). Respondents argue that because children participating in nonathletic extracurricular activities are not subject to regular physicals and communal undress, they have a stronger expectation of privacy than the athletes tested in Vernonia. See Brief for Respondents 18–20. This distinction, however, was not essential to our decision in Vernonia, which depended primarily upon the school’s custodial responsibility and authority.3 In any event, students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities voluntarily subject themselves to many of the same intrusions on their privacy as do athletes.4 Some of these clubs and activities require occasional off-campus travel and communal undress. All of them have their own rules and requirements for participating students that do not apply to the student body as a whole. 115 F. Supp. 2d, at 1289–1290. For example, each of the competitive extracurricular activities governed by the Policy must abide by the rules of the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association, and a faculty sponsor monitors the students for compliance with the various rules dictated by the clubs and activities. See id., at 1290. This regulation of extracurricular activities further diminishes the expectation of privacy among schoolchildren. Cf. Vernonia, supra, at 657 (“Somewhat like adults who choose to participate in a closely regulated industry, students who voluntarily participate in school athletics have reason to expect intrusions upon normal rights and privileges, including privacy” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We therefore conclude that the students affected by this Policy have a limited expectation of privacy. B Next, we consider the character of the intrusion imposed by the Policy. See Vernonia, supra, at 658. Urination is “an excretory function traditionally shielded by great privacy.” Skinner, 489 U.S., at 626. But the “degree of intrusion” on one’s privacy caused by collecting a urine sample “depends upon the manner in which production of the urine sample is monitored.” Vernonia, supra, at 658. Under the Policy, a faculty monitor waits outside the closed restroom stall for the student to produce a sample and must “listen for the normal sounds of urination in order to guard against tampered specimens and to insure an accurate chain of custody.” App. 199. The monitor then pours the sample into two bottles that are sealed and placed into a mailing pouch along with a consent form signed by the student. This

Appendix 5

procedure is virtually identical to that reviewed in Vernonia, except that it additionally protects privacy by allowing male students to produce their samples behind a closed stall. Given that we considered the method of collection in Vernonia a “negligible” intrusion, 515 U.S., at 658, the method here is even less problematic. In addition, the Policy clearly requires that the test results be kept in confidential files separate from a student’s other educational records and released to school personnel only on a “need to know” basis. Respondents nonetheless contend that the intrusion on students’ privacy is significant because the Policy fails to protect effectively against the disclosure of confidential information and, specifically, that the school “has been careless in protecting that information: for example, the Choir teacher looked at students’ prescription drug lists and left them where other students could see them.” Brief for Respondents 24. But the choir teacher is someone with a “need to know,” because during off-campus trips she needs to know what medications are taken by her students. Even before the Policy was enacted the choir teacher had access to this information. See App. 132. In any event, there is no allegation that any other student did see such information. This one example of alleged carelessness hardly increases the character of the intrusion. Moreover, the test results are not turned over to any law enforcement authority. Nor do the test results here lead to the imposition of discipline or have any academic consequences. Cf. Vernonia, supra, at 658, and n. 2. Rather, the only consequence of a failed drug test is to limit the student’s privilege of participating in extracurricular activities. Indeed, a student may test positive for drugs twice and still be allowed to participate in extracurricular activities. After the first positive test, the school contacts the student’s parent or guardian for a meeting. The student may continue to participate in the activity if within five days of the meeting the student shows proof of receiving drug counseling and submits to a second drug test in two weeks. For the second positive test, the student is suspended from participation in all extracurricular activities for 14 days, must complete four hours of substance abuse counseling, and must submit to monthly drug tests. Only after a third positive test will the student be suspended from participating in any extracurricular activity for the remainder of the school year, or 88 school days, whichever is longer. See App. 201-202. Given the minimally intrusive nature of the sample collection and the limited uses to which the test results are put, we conclude that the invasion of students’ privacy is not significant.

653

654

Appendix 5

C Finally, this Court must consider the nature and immediacy of the government’s concerns and the efficacy of the Policy in meeting them. See Vernonia, 515 U.S., at 660. This Court has already articulated in detail the importance of the governmental concern in preventing drug use by schoolchildren. See id., at 661–662. The drug abuse problem among our Nation’s youth has hardly abated since Vernonia was decided in 1995. In fact, evidence suggests that it has only grown worse.5 As in Vernonia, “the necessity for the State to act is magnified by the fact that this evil is being visited not just upon individuals at large, but upon children for whom it has undertaken a special responsibility of care and direction.” Id., at 662. The health and safety risks identified in Vernonia apply with equal force to Tecumseh’s children. Indeed, the nationwide drug epidemic makes the war against drugs a pressing concern in every school. Additionally, the School District in this case has presented specific evidence of drug use at Tecumseh schools. Teachers testified that they had seen students who appeared to be under the influence of drugs and that they had heard students speaking openly about using drugs. See, e.g., App. 72 (deposition of Dean Rogers); id., at 115 (deposition of Sheila Evans). A drug dog found marijuana cigarettes near the school parking lot. Police officers once found drugs or drug paraphernalia in a car driven by a Future Farmers of America member. And the school board president reported that people in the community were calling the board to discuss the “drug situation.” See 115 F. Supp. 2d, at 1285–1286. We decline to second- guess the finding of the District Court that “[v]iewing the evidence as a whole, it cannot be reasonably disputed that the [School District] was faced with a ‘drug problem’ when it adopted the Policy.” Id., at 1287. Respondents consider the proffered evidence insufficient and argue that there is no “real and immediate interest” to justify a policy of drug testing nonathletes. Brief for Respondents 32. We have recognized, however, that “[a] demonstrated problem of drug abuse . . . [is] not in all cases necessary to the validity of a testing regime,” but that some showing does “shore up an assertion of special need for a suspicionless general search program.” Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 319 (1997). The School District has provided sufficient evidence to shore up the need for its drug testing program. Furthermore, this Court has not required a particularized or pervasive drug problem before allowing the government to conduct suspicionless drug testing. For instance, in Von Raab the Court upheld the drug

Appendix 5

testing of customs officials on a purely preventive basis, without any documented history of drug use by such officials. See 489 U.S., at 673. In response to the lack of evidence relating to drug use, the Court noted generally that “drug abuse is one of the most serious problems confronting our society today,” and that programs to prevent and detect drug use among customs officials could not be deemed unreasonable. Id., at 674; cf. Skinner, 489 U.S., at 607, and n. 1 (noting nationwide studies that identified on-the-job alcohol and drug use by railroad employees). Likewise, the need to prevent and deter the substantial harm of childhood drug use provides the necessary immediacy for a school testing policy. Indeed, it would make little sense to require a school district to wait for a substantial portion of its students to begin using drugs before it was allowed to institute a drug testing program designed to deter drug use. Given the nationwide epidemic of drug use, and the evidence of increased drug use in Tecumseh schools, it was entirely reasonable for the School District to enact this particular drug testing policy. We reject the Court of Appeals’ novel test that “any district seeking to impose a random suspicionless drug testing policy as a condition to participation in a school activity must demonstrate that there is some identifiable drug abuse problem among a sufficient number of those subject to the testing, such that testing that group of students will actually redress its drug problem.” 242 F.3d, at 1278. Among other problems, it would be difficult to administer such a test. As we cannot articulate a threshold level of drug use that would suffice to justify a drug testing program for schoolchildren, we refuse to fashion what would in effect be a constitutional quantum of drug use necessary to show a “drug problem.” Respondents also argue that the testing of nonathletes does not implicate any safety concerns, and that safety is a “crucial factor” in applying the special needs framework. Brief for Respondents 25–27. They contend that there must be “surpassing safety interests,” Skinner, supra, at 634, or “extraordinary safety and national security hazards,” Von Raab, supra, at 674, in order to override the usual protections of the Fourth Amendment. See Brief for Respondents 25–26. Respondents are correct that safety factors into the special needs analysis, but the safety interest furthered by drug testing is undoubtedly substantial for all children, athletes and nonathletes alike. We know all too well that drug use carries a variety of health risks for children, including death from overdose. We also reject respondents’ argument that drug testing must presumptively be based upon an individualized reasonable suspicion of

655

656

Appendix 5

wrongdoing because such a testing regime would be less intrusive. See id., at 12–16. In this context, the Fourth Amendment does not require a finding of individualized suspicion, see supra, at 5, and we decline to impose such a requirement on schools attempting to prevent and detect drug use by students. Moreover, we question whether testing based on individualized suspicion in fact would be less intrusive. Such a regime would place an additional burden on public school teachers who are already tasked with the difficult job of maintaining order and discipline. A program of individualized suspicion might unfairly target members of unpopular groups. The fear of lawsuits resulting from such targeted searches may chill enforcement of the program, rendering it ineffective in combating drug use. See Vernonia, 515 U.S., at 663–664 (offering similar reasons for why “testing based on ‘suspicion’ of drug use would not be better, but worse”). In any case, this Court has repeatedly stated that reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment does not require employing the least intrusive means, because “[t]he logic of such elaborate less-restrictive-alternative arguments could raise insuperable barriers to the exercise of virtually all search-and-seizure powers.” Martinez and Fuerte, 428 U.S., at 556–557, n. 12; see also Skinner, supra, at 624 (“[A] showing of individualized suspicion is not a constitutional floor, below which a search must be presumed unreasonable”). Finally, we find that testing students who participate in extracurricular activities is a reasonably effective means of addressing the School District’s legitimate concerns in preventing, deterring, and detecting drug use. While in Vernonia there might have been a closer fit between the testing of athletes and the trial court’s finding that the drug problem was “fueled by the ‘role model’ effect of athletes’ drug use,” such a finding was not essential to the holding. 515 U.S., at 663; cf. id., at 684–685 (O’Connor, J., dissenting) (questioning the extent of the drug problem, especially as applied to athletes). Vernonia did not require the school to test the group of students most likely to use drugs, but rather considered the constitutionality of the program in the context of the public school’s custodial responsibilities. Evaluating the Policy in this context, we conclude that the drug testing of Tecumseh students who participate in extracurricular activities effectively serves the School District’s interest in protecting the safety and health of its students. III Within the limits of the Fourth Amendment, local school boards must assess the desirability of drug testing schoolchildren. In upholding the constitutionality of the Policy, we express no opinion as to its

Appendix 5

wisdom. Rather, we hold only that Tecumseh’s Policy is a reasonable means of furthering the School District’s important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.

Notes 1. The District Court noted that the School District’s allegations concerning Daniel James called his standing to sue into question because his failing grades made him ineligible to participate in any interscholastic competition. See 115 F. Supp. 2d 1281, 1282, n. 1 (WD Okla. 2000). The court noted, however, that the dispute need not be resolved because Lindsay Earls had standing, and therefore the court was required to address the constitutionality of the drug testing policy. See ibid. Because we are likewise satisfied that Earls has standing, we need not address whether James also has standing. 2. The respondents did not challenge the Policy either as it applies to athletes or as it provides for drug testing upon reasonable, individualized suspicion. See App. 28. 3. Justice Ginsburg argues that Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995), depended on the fact that the drug testing program applied only to student athletes. But even the passage cited by the dissent manifests the supplemental nature of this factor, as the Court in Vernonia stated that “[l]egitimate privacy expectations are even less with regard to student athletes.” See post, at 5 (citing Vernonia, 515 U.S., at 657) (emphasis added). In upholding the drug testing program in Vernonia, we considered the school context “[c]entral” and “[t]he most significant element.” 515 U.S., at 654, 665. This hefty weight on the side of the school’s balance applies with similar force in this case even though we undertake a separate balancing with regard to this particular program. 4. Justice Ginsburg’s observations with regard to extracurricular activities apply with equal force to athletics. See post, at 4 (“Participation in such [extracurricular] activities is a key component of school life, essential in reality for students applying to college, and, for all participants, a significant contributor to the breadth and quality of the educational experience”). 5. For instance, the number of 12th graders using any illicit drug increased from 48.4 percent in 1995 to 53.9 percent in 2001. The number of 12th graders reporting they had used marijuana jumped from 41.7 percent to 49.0 percent during that same period. See Department of Health and Human Services, Monitoring the Future: National Results on Adolescent Drug Use, Overview of Key Findings (2001) (Table 1).

657

This page intentionally left blank

Recommended Films About School and Campus Crime and Violence

American Yearbook (2004) Should bullying victims take revenge? This film grapples with the choices faced by victims of school bullying. April Showers (2009) Writer/director Andrew Robinson, a Columbine survivor, shows how students coped with the aftermath of Columbine and the loss of their friends. Bang Bang, You’re Dead (2002) Students bully Trevor—that is, until Trevor calls in a phony bomb threat with a working bomb. After that, everyone except a group of outcasts is afraid of him, and Trevor takes the blame for anything that goes wrong at the school. One caring drama teacher is Trevor’s only salvation. Basketball Diaries (1995) The film adaptation of about Jim Carroll’s descent into drug addiction. Jim is a great basketball player, but little else in his life is great. It is only through drugs that he manages to escape the harsh reality of his life. The film depicts a dream sequence in which Jim (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) goes on a shooting rampage in his school. Blackboard Jungle (1955) This classic film, starring Sidney Poitier, shows an urban school rife with verbal and physical violence. It spawned numerous remakes. Blue Chips (1994) Blue Chips shows the cheating and NCAA rules violations that are far too common in college basketball. Coach Pete Bell (played by Nick Nolte) succumbs to the pressure to win and allows powerful athletic boosters to pay his

659

660

Recommended Films About School and Campus Crime and Violence

athletes. The film stars real and former NBA stars Shaquille O’Neal and Penny Hardaway. Bowling for Columbine (2002) This award-winning documentary by filmmaker Michael Moore addresses the culture of violence in the United States. It attempts to more deeply understand what motivated the Columbine shooters by looking at gun control, media, governmental violence, welfare policy, and many other factors. It includes interviews with the creators of South Park, Charlton Heston, and Marilyn Manson. Bully (2001) Not overtly about schools, Bully depicts what happens when a victim tires of being bullied and seeks revenge. He and a group of friends suffer the repercussions of their naı¨ve actions. Cry for Help (2009) A PBS documentary examining teenage mental illness, suicide, and how to help. It can be viewed online at http://www.pbs.org/wnet/cryforhelp/ Dangerous Minds (1995) This award-winning film documents the lives of urban youth and demonstrates how one teacher—in this case, an ex-Marine (played by Michelle Pfeiffer)— can help. Dark Matter (2007) Inspired by a 1991 school shooting, the film depicts the pressures of academia, in particular for Asian students. Dead Poets Society (1989) Set in an elite boarding school, the film depicts the tension students face to succeed and shows how one dedicated and creative teacher can help them explore their true passions. Detention: The Siege at Johnson High (1997) Starring Rick Schroeder, Freddy Prinze, Jr., Rodney Dangerfield, and Henry Winkler, this film largely depicts the school hostage situation perpetrated by Eric Houston at Lindhurst High School in 1992. Duck! The Carbine High Massacre (2000) One of the first films on this topic released after the Columbine massacre, this black comedy shows the problems with moral panics and conspiracy theories.

Recommended Films About School and Campus Crime and Violence

Elephant (2003) This award-winning film from writer/director Gus Van Sant is based on the Columbine shootings. It documents the lead-up to a school massacre by seemingly “normal” students. Freedom Writers (2007) Starring Hilary Swank, this film tells the true story of a Long Beach, California, high school teacher who helps her at-risk students develop skills and empathy. Hidden Rage (2008) This film documents the traumatic effects of school bullying. The website www.hiddenrage.com provides resources for discussing school violence. High School High (1996) A satire that mixes parts of Dangerous Minds and Stand and Deliver, this film shows how a caring teacher can change a student’s life. Higher Learning (1995) A diverse college campus grapples with racial tension, hate crimes, rape, and more. The film provides a highly dramatic depiction of how far awry things can go on a campus that is disconnected. The Killer at Thurston High This PBS Frontline episode tells the story of school shooter Kip Kinkel. The website http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kinkel/ provides more information about the case and other school shooters. Lean on Me (1989) Morgan Freeman stars as Joe Clark, the principal of a dangerous, urban school in which test scores are so bad the school is close to being shut down. The film highlights the power of expectations. Light It Up (1999) Starring musician Usher and actress Rosario Dawson, Light It Up tells the story of a group of urban students who stand up for their right to be educated and treated fairly. After a school police officer mistreats one of them, the students take over the school and demand a quality education. Mean Creek (2004) A bullied teen and his friends lure the bully into a boat trip and seek revenge. The film shows what can happen when students believe revenge is the answer.

661

662

Recommended Films About School and Campus Crime and Violence

O (2001) A modern-day retelling of Shakespeare’s Othello, this film is set in a high school. “O,” played by Mekhi Phifer, is the star of the team and the only African American student at the school. He is love with Desi (Julia Stiles), the dean’s daughter. Jealous teammate Hugo (Josh Hartnett) is addicted to steroids and initiates a series of problems that explode into major atrocities. One Eight Seven (1997) Starring Samuel L. Jackson, this film shows how high school teachers deal with gang violence. The Program (1993) Starring James Caan, Omar Epps, and Halle Berry, this film offers a fictional yet realistic depiction of the pressure on college football teams. It includes cheating, recruiting violations, and more. School Ties (1992) A cast of young stars (Brendan Fraser, Matt Damon, Chris O’Donnell) show the problems with elite schools, including elitism, privilege, cheating, and antiSemitism. When working-class newcomer David Greene takes over the quarterback position at an exclusive prep school, the animosity hits a boiling point. Stand and Deliver (1988) This film tells the true story of tough and demanding teacher Jaime Escalante, who shows urban high school students in a violence and gang-infested school that it is okay to succeed. Teachers (1984) A “day-in-the-life” film, Teachers depicts troubled students and shows how their teachers deal with them, both good and bad. Tomorrow’s Children (2001) This documentary features the work of historian Riane Eisler. It shows how schools have been modeled on domination and hierarchy and the promise of a different model. Tough Guise (1999) This documentary by Media Education Foundation discusses how gender roles contribute to many forms of violent behavior today.

Recommended Films About School and Campus Crime and Violence

Varsity Blues (1999) Shows how football in small-time football in Texas is king. The team is everything, and can get away with anything. Athletes drink illegally, use performance-enhancing drugs, and cheat. Zero Day (2003) This fictional depiction of the Columbine massacre shows the planning stages, including how the students acquired the weapons. It is acclaimed by journalist and author Dave Cullen as an especially realistic depiction.

663

This page intentionally left blank

Recommended Resources

Books General Balfour, S. (Ed.). (2005). How Can School Violence Be Prevented? Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven. Bellini, J. (2001). Child’s Prey. New York: Pinnacle. Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. (2005). School Violence in Context: Culture, Neighborhood, Family, School, and Gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Blanchard, K. (2003). How to Talk to Your Kids About School Violence. New York: Onomatopoeia. Brezina, C. (2000). Deadly School and Campus Violence. New York: Rosen. Casella, R. (2001). At Zero Tolerance: Punishment, Prevention, and School Violence. New York: Peter Lang. Casella, R. (2001). “Being Down”: Challenging Violence in Urban Schools. New York: Teachers College. Chalmers, P. (2009). Inside the Mind of a Teen Killer. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. Cornell, D. (2006). School Violence: Fears Versus Facts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates. DiGuilio, R. (2001). Educate, Medicate, or Litigate? What Teachers, Parents, and Administrators Must Do About Student Behavior. New York: Corwin Books. Fearnley, F. (2004). I Wrote on All Four Walls: Teens Speak Out on Violence. Toronto: Annick. Finley, L., & Finley, P. (2006). The Sport Industry’s War on Athletes. Westport, CT: Praeger. Fisher, B., & Sloan, J. (2007). Campus Crime:Legal, Social, and Policy Perspectives. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

665

666

Recommended Resources

Flowers, R. (2009). College Crime: A Statistical Study of Crime on College Campuses. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Gerler, E. (2004). Handbook of School Violence. Binghamton, NY: Haworth. Hunnicutt, S. (Ed.). (2006). School Shootings. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven. Kohn, A. (2005). Shooters: Myths and Realities of America’s Gun Cultures. New York: Oxford University Press. Langman, P. (2009). Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Lawrence, R. (2006). School Crime and Juvenile Justice, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford. Lieberman, J. (2006). The Shooting Game: The Making of School Shooters. Santa Ana, CA: Seven Locks Press. Mortenson, G. (2007). Three Cups of Tea: One Man’s Mission to Promote Peace . . . One School at a Time. New York: Penguin. Mortenson, G. (2009). Stones into Schools: Promoting Peace with Books, Not Bombs, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. New York: Viking. National Resource Council. (2002). Deadly Lessons: Understanding Lethal School Violence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Newman, K., Fox, C., Roth, W., & Mehta, J. (2005). Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings. New York: Basic. Orr, T. (2001). Violence in Our Schools: Halls of Hope, Halls of Fear. New York: Franklin Watts. Paludi, M. (2008). Understanding and Preventing Campus Violence. Westport, CT: Praeger. Sexton-Radek, K. (2005). Violence in Schools: Issues, Consequences, and Expressions. Westport, CT: Praeger. Stevenson, L. (2003). From the Inside Out: A Look into Teen Violence and Rebellion. Bloomington, ID: Authorhouse. Thomas, R. (2006). Violence in America’s Schools: Understanding, Prevention, and Responses. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Turk, W. (Ed.). (2004). School Crime and Policing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Webber, J. (2003). Failure to Hold: The Politics of School Violence. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Weill, S. (2002). We’re Not Monsters: Teens Speak Out About Teens in Trouble. New York: HarperTempest. Bullying Coloroso, B. (2003). The Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander: From Preschool to High School—How Parents and Teachers Can Help Break the Cycle of Violence. New York: HarperCollins.

Recommended Resources

Fried, S. (2003). Bullies, Targets, and Witnesses: Helping Children Break the Pain Chain. New York: M. Evans. Goodstein, A. (2007). Totally Wired: What Teens Are Really Doing Online. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Kelsey, C. (2007). MySpace: Helping Your Teen Survive Online Adolescence. New York: Marlowe. Kowalski, R., Limber, S., & Agatston, P. (2007). Cyber Bullying: Bullying in the Digital Age. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Olweus, D. (2004). Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Phillips, R., Linney, J., & Pack, C. (2008). Safe School Ambassadors: Harnessing Student Power to Stop Bullying and Violence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Simmons, R. (2002). Odd Girl Out: The Hidden Culture of Aggression in Girls. New York: Harcourt. Weisman, R. (2002). Queen Bees and Wannabees: Helping Your Daughter Survive Cliques, Gossip, Boyfriends, and Other Realities of Adolescence. New York: Three Rivers Press. Willard, N. (2007). Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenge of Online Social Aggression. Champaign, IL: Research Press. Specific Cases Agger, B. There Is a Gunman on Campus: Tragedy and Terror at Virginia Tech. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Bellini, J. (2001). Child’s Prey. New York: Pinnacle. Bernstein, A. (2009). Bath Massacre: America’s First School Bombing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Brown, B., & Merritt, R. (2002). No Easy Answers: The Truth Behind the Death at Columbine. New York: Lantern. Cullen, D. (2009). Columbine. New York, NY: Twelve. Dolnik, A. (2007). Negotiating the Impossible?: The Beslan Hostage Crisis. London: Royal United Services Institute. Eggington, J. (1991). Day of fury: The Story of the Tragic Shootings That Forever Changed the Village of Winnetka. New York: William Morrow. Eglin, P., & Hester, S. (2003). The Montreal Massacre: A Story of Membership Categorization Analysis. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier Press. Gibson, G. (1999). Gone Boy: A Walkabout. New York: Anchor. Giduck, J. (2006). Terror at Beslan: A Russian Tragedy with Lessons for America’s Schools. Boulder, CO: Paladin Press. Greenhill, J. (2006). Someone Has to Die Tonight. New York: Pinnacle.

667

668

Recommended Resources

Kaplan, J., Papajohn, G., & Zorn, E. (1991). Murder of Innocence: The Tragic Life and Final Rampage of Laurie Dann, the Schoolhouse Killer. New York: Warner Books. Lansford, L. (2006). Beslan: Shattered Innocence. Charleston, SC: BookSurge, Merritt, R., & Brown, B. (2002). No Easy Answers: The Truth Behind Death at Columbine. Herndon, VA: Lantern. Phillips, T. (2007). Beslan: The Tragedy of School Number 1. London: Granta Books. Roy, L. (2009). No Right to Remain Silent: The Tragedy at Virginia Tech. New York: Harmony. Uschan, M. (2005). The Beslan School Siege and Separatist Terrorism. Strongsville, OH: Gareth Stevens. Uttley, S. ( 2006). Dunblane Unburried London: Book Publishing World. Hazing DeSantis, C. (2007). Inside Greek U: Fraternities, Sororities, and the Pursuit of Pleasure, Power, and Prestige. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press. Guynn, K. L., & Aquila, F. D. (2005). Hazing in High Schools: Causes and Consequences. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Johnson, J., & Holman, M. (Eds.). (2004). Making the Team: The Inside World of Sport Initiations and Hazing. Toronto: Canadian Scholar’s Press. Lipkins, S. (2006). Preventing Hazing: How Parents, Teachers, and Coaches Can Stop the Violence, Harassment, and Humiliation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Nuwer, H. (2000). High School Hazing: When Rites Become Wrongs. London, UK: Franklin Watts. Nuwer, H. (2002). Wrongs of Passage: Fraternities, Sororities, Hazing, and Binge Drinking. Bloomington, ID: Indiana University Press. Nuwer, H. (Ed.). (2004). The Hazing Reader. Bloomington, ID: Indiana University Press. Robbins, A. (2005). Pledged: The Secret Life of Sororities. New York, NY: Hyperion. Civil Liberties Dupre, A. (2009). Speaking Up: The Unintended Costs of Free Speech in Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Finley, L., & Finley, P. (2005). Piss Off! How Drug Testing and Other Privacy Violations Are Alienating America’s Youth. Monroe, ME: Common Courage.

Recommended Resources

Gender Brown, L. M. (2003). Girlfighting: Betrayal and Rejection Among Girls. New York: New York University Press. Chesney-Lind, M. (2007). Beyond Bad Girls: Gender, Violence, and Hype. London: Routledge. Ferguson, A. (2001). Bad Boys: Public Schools in the Making of Black Masculinity. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Garbarino, J. (2007). See Jane Hit: Why Girls Are Growing More Violent and What We Can Do About It. New York: Penguin. Hinshaw, S. (2009). The Triple Bind: Saving Our Teenage Girls from Today’s Pressures. New York: Random House. Jones, N. (2009). Between Good and Ghetto: African American Girls and Inner City Violence. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Katz, J. (2006). The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks. Kimmel, M. (2009). Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men. New York: Parker. Kindlon, D. (2007). Alpha Girls: Understanding the New American Girl and How She Is Changing the World. New York: Rodale. Meyer, E. (2009). Gender, Bullying, and Harassment: Strategies to End Sexism and Homophobia in Schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Prothrow-Stith, D., & Spivak, H. (2007). Sugar and Spice and No Longer Nice: How We Can Stop Girls’ Violence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hate Crimes Gerstenfeld, P. (2010). Hate Crimes: Causes, Controls, and Controversies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gerstenfeld, P., & Grant, D. (Eds.). (2002).Crimes of Hate: Selected Readings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Levin, J., & McDevitt, J. (2002). Hate Crimes Revisited: America’s War on Those Who Are Different. Boulder, CO: Westview. Dating and Sexual Violence Daigle, L. (2009). Unsafe in the Ivory Tower. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miles, A. (2005). Ending Violence in Teen Dating Relationships. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Books. Murray, J. (2007). But He Never Hit Me. Bloomington, ID: iUniverse. Ottens, J., & Hotelling, K. (2000). Sexual Violence on Campus: Policies, Programs, and Perspectives. New York, NY: Springer.

669

670

Recommended Resources

Drugs Mohamed, A., & Frtizvold, E. (2009). Dorm Room Drug Dealers: Drugs and the Privileges of Race and Class. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner. Wilson, R., & Kolander, C. (2010). Drug Abuse Prevention: A School and Community Partnership, 3rd ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett. Suicide, Eating Disorders, and Self-Harm Bornstein, K., & Quin, S. (2006). Hello Cruel World: 1010 Alternatives to Suicide for Teens, Freaks and Other Outlaws. New York: Seven Stories Press. Martin, C. (2007). Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters: The Frightening New Normalcy of Hating Your Body. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Mendelsohn, S. (2007). It’s Not About the Weight: Attacking Eating Disorders from the Inside Out. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse. Turner, V. (2002). Secret Scars: Uncovering and Understanding the Addiction of Self-Injury. Center City, MN: Hazelden. Theories/Explanations Fast, J. (2008). Ceremonial Violence: A Psychological Explanation of School Shootings. New York, NY: Overlook Press. Garbarino, J. (2000). Lost Boys: Why Our Sons Turn Violent and How We Can Save Them. New York: Anchor. Katch, J. (2001). Under Dead Man’s Skin: Discovering the Meaning of Children’s Violent Play. Boston: Beacon. Kohn, A. (2005). Shooters: Myths and Realities of America’s Gun Culture. New York: Oxford University Press. Langman, P. (2009). Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Schier, H. (2008). The Causes of School Violence. Edina, MN: Abdo Publishing. Responses Aronson, E. (2000). Nobody Left to Hate: Teaching Compassion After Columbine. Orange, VA: W. H. Freeman. Bodine, R., Crawford, D., & Schrumpf, F. (2003). Creating the Peaceable School: A Comprehensive Program for Teaching Conflict Resolution. Champaign, IL: Research PR Publisher. Cohen, R. (2005). Students Resolving Conflict. New York: Good Year Books. Cornell, D., & Sheras, P. (2006). Guidelines for Responding to Student Threats of Violence. New York: Sopris West.

Recommended Resources

Cremin, H. (2007). Peer Mediation: Citizenship and Social Inclusion in Action. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. DiGuilio, R. (2000). Educate, Medicate, or Litigate? What Teachers, Parents, and Administrators Must Do About Student Behavior. New York: Corwin. Eisler, R., & Miller, R. (Eds.). (2004). Educating for a Culture of Peace. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Fox, J., & Burstein, H. (2010). Violence and Security on Campus: From Preschool to College. Westport, CT: Praeger. Harber, C. (2004). Schooling as Violence: How Schools Harm Pupils and Societies. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Hemphill, B., & LeBanc, B. (Eds.). (2010). Enough Is Enough: A Student Affairs Perspective on Preparedness and Response to a Campus Shooting. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Hiber, M. (2008). Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults? New York: Greenhaven. Karp, D., & Allena, T. (2004). Restorative Justice on the College Campus: Promoting Student Growth and Responsibility and Reawakening the Spirit of Campus Community. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Lentz, M. (Ed.). (2009). Campus Security for Public and Private Colleges and Universities. Eagan, MN: Thomson West. Lin, J., Brantmeier, E., & Bruhn, C. (2008). Transforming Education for Peace. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Nicoletti, J., Spencer-Thomas, S., & Bollinger, C. (2009). Violence Goes to College: The Authoritative Guide to Prevention and Intervention. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Schrage, J., & Giacomini, N. (Eds.). (2009). Reframing Campus Conflict: Student Conduct Practice Through a Social Justice Lens. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Smith, P. K. (Ed.). (2003). Violence in Schools: The Response in Europe. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Trump, K. (2000). Classroom Killers? Hallway Hostages? How Schools Can Prevent and Manage School Crises. New York: Corwin. Media Coleman, L. (2004). The Copycat Effect: How the Media and Popular Culture Trigger the Mayhem in Tomorrow’s Headlines. New York: Simon & Schuster. Jones, G. (2003). Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence. New York: Basic. Potter, W. (2002). The 11 Myths of Media Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rafter, N. (2000). Shots in the Mirror. New York: Oxford University Press. Ravitch, D., & Vilerette, J. (2003). Kid Stuff: Marketing Sex and Violence to America’s Children. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

671

672

Recommended Resources

Strasburger, V. (2002). Children, Adolescents and the Media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Websites PBS Frontline: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kinkel/ Informative video and resources on Kip Kinkel. Stop Bullying Now! www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov Information, resources, and links related to preventing and responding to bullying. National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center: http://www.safeyouth.org/ scripts/topics/bullying.asp Information on a variety of types of school and campus violence. Ophelia Project: http://www.opheliaproject.org/main/index.htm Resources and ideas for addressing girl-on-girl bullying and other issues relevant to girls. National Center for Victims of Crime Dating Violence Resource Center: http:// www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbID=DB_DatingViolenceResourceCenter101 Statistics, warning signs, and additional resources related to dating violence. Stop Hazing: www.stophazing.org Statistics, stories, and resources about hazing at all levels. Inside Hazing: http://www.insidehazing.com/ Statistics, stories and resources about hazing at all levels. Dating Violence: www.breakthecycle.org Information on warning signs and help available for victims of dating violence. National Coalition Against Violent Athletes: www.ncava.org Focuses on identifying violent athletes at college and professional levels. Mentors in Violence Prevention: http://www.sportinsociety.org/vpd/mvp.php Programs designed to help athletes and others as bystanders to crime and violence. Security on Campus, Inc: www.securityoncampus.org Devoted to disseminating information and resources related to campus safety. Center for the Prevention of School Violence: http://www.ncdjjdp.org/cpsv/ Provides information, statistics, and links related to school violence. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, School Violence Resources: http:// www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/schoolviolence/index.html Resources for preventing and responding to school violence. Brady Center for Prevent Gun Violence: www.bradycenter.org Devoted to informing the public and lobbying for greater control of handguns, National Crime Prevention Council: www.ncpc.org Addresses the prevention of all forms of crime. National School Safety Center: www.schoolsafety.us

Recommended Resources

Provides resources to schools on how to stay safe and how to respond to crises. Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, U.S. Department of Education: www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS Resources, statistics, and funding available. Youth Crime Watch of America: www.ignitusworldwide.org Student-led groups help prevent crime. American Academy of Pediatrics: www.aap.org Recommendations for safe and healthy children and youth. American Civil Liberties Union: www.aclu.org Civil rights watchdog that is often involved in cases related to students’ rights. National Alliance for Safe Schools: www.safeschools.org Provides workshops and resources for educators and schools. Oregon Social Learning Center: www.oslc.org Multidisciplinary center that promotes the scientific understanding of children’s health and well-being. Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence: www.colorado.edu/cspv Disseminates research and reports on school violence. Prevention Institute: www.preventioninstitute.org Provides online workshops related to a number of topics. Street Law: www.streetlaw.org Resource for materials on crime and violence, especially for classroom educators. Violence Policy Center: www.vpc.org Performs research, investigation, analysis, and advocacy related to making the United States safer. Students Against Violence Everywhere: www.save.org Student-led organization with multiple chapters. Drug Free Schools: www.drugfreeschools.com Provides statistics and resources related to keeping schools drug free. Monitoring the Future: www.monitoringthefuture.org Major survey of student drug use. Center for Media Literacy: www.medialit.org Research and information related to critical analysis of media. Stopping Corporal Punishment: www.stophitting.com Advocates the end of corporal punishment; provides statistics and reports. School Violence Resource Center: www.svrc.net Information and resources related to all facets of school violence. Bully Free: www.bullyfree.com Resources for ending bullying. Free Vibe Facts About Drug Use: www.freevibe.com Provides fact sheets about a variety of drugs and their effects. Peaceful Schools International: www.peacefulschoolsinternational.org

673

674

Recommended Resources

Provides support to schools across the globe that have declared their devotion to peace. Consortium to Prevent School Violence: www.preventschoolviolence.org Fact sheets and resources on preventing school violence. Center for Partnership Studies: www.partnershipway.org Sociological and historical information about creating partnership-based schools. Stop Cyberbullying: www.stopcyberbullying.org Devoted to providing information about cyber bullying and its effects. iSafe: www.isafe.org Provider of Internet safety education. The Cool Spot: http://www.thecoolspot.gov/ The young teen’s place for info on alcohol and resisting peer pressure. Amnesty International: www.amnesty.org Human rights watchdog group; provides information relevant to school violence, youth activism, and teaching human rights. Hamilton Fish Institute: http://www.hamfish.org/ Rigorous academic work devoted to safe and healthy children. Canadian Safe School Network: http://www.canadiansafeschools.com/home.htm Information and resources regarding school violence in Canada. Pennies for Peace: www.penniesforpeace.org Empowers young people to get involved so that all children have access to education. Central Asia Institute: https://www.ikat.org/ Builds schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Save the Children: http://www.savethechildren.org/ Helps build schools in many countries. Free Child: www.freechild.org Provides tools and training to young people and adults so that youth can help effect social change. Do Something: www.dosomething.org Information, project ideas, and grant money for young people seeking to make their world better.

Journals African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies American Journal of Criminal Justice Asia Pacific Journal of Police & Criminal Justice Asian Journal of Criminology British Journal of Criminology

Recommended Resources

Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice Contemporary Issues in Criminology & the Social Sciences Contemporary Justice Review Crime, Law, and Social Change Criminal Justice: The International Journal of Policy and Practice Criminal Justice Policy Review Criminal Justice Review Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society Criminology Criminology and Public Policy Critical Criminology Critical Issues in Justice and Politics Feminist Criminology French Review of Criminology Humanity and Society International Criminal Justice Review International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice International Journal of Comparative Criminology International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences International Journal of Cyber Criminology Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice Journal for Crime, Conflict and the Media Journal of Crime and Justice Journal of Criminal Justice Education Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Journal of Drug Issues Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Studies Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice Journal of Gang Research Journal of Knowledge and Best Practices in Juvenile Justice & Psychology Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution Journal of Law and Social Challenges Journal of Peace Education Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency Journal of School Violence Journal of Security Education Journal of Social Criminology Journal of Youth and Adolescence Justice Policy Journal Justice Quarterly

675

676

Recommended Resources

Justice Research and Policy Justice System Journal Juvenile Justice Journal Security Journal Social Problems Solving Social Problems Victims and Offenders Violence Against Women Violence and Victims Women and Criminal Justice Youth and Society

Index

Page numbers for main entries are listed in bold. freedom of speech, 14, 186–89, 490–92; hate crimes, 14–15; LGBTQ, 14; privacy, 352; strip searches, 14, 406–7; zero tolerance, 14, 543–45 American College Health Association (ACHA), 356 Amnesty International, 15–16, 236 Anger management, 16–17 Anomie, 442–43 Anonymous tip lines, 17–19 Appalachian School of Law, 327–28 Arts-based programs, 19–21; Branch Out, 21; Elijah’s Kite, 21; Urban Improv, 21 Asia and school crime and violence, 22–24 Asians, 22–24, 271–73, 275–76 Athletes, 24–35; bystanders, 34; Can I Kiss You?, 33; Coaching Boys Into Men, 34; college, 24–28; Columbine High School, 29; cultural spillover theory, 31; dating violence, 30; Duke lacrosse, 154–56; Glen Ridge, New Jersey, hazing, 29–30, 72, 225–31, 503, 512–13; high school, 32, 506–7; La Salle University, 263–64; Major League Baseball, 35; Mentors in Violence Prevention, 32, 33–34; modeling theory, 31; National Football League, 34–35; Northwestern High School, 324–25; Project Teamwork, 34; sexual assault, 26–27, 30, 33–34, 154–56, 263–64, 324–25, 455–56; violence prevention, 32–35 Athletes and crime and violence, college, 24–28

Abuse and crime and violence, 1–3; children; 1–3; corporal punishment, 1–3, 112–13, 288–89, 384–85; domestic violence; 2, 140–41 Adams, John, 368 ADD/ADHD, 3–5; psychoactive drugs; 4–5, 148, 150; school shooters; 5, 35–39 Adler, Freda, 208 Adult trials for juveniles, 5–7; Abraham, Nathaniel, 5–6; Brazill, Nathaniel, 66–67; Brewer, Michael, case, 6, 492–93; concurrent jurisdiction, 6; juvenile waivers, 6; presumptive waivers, 6; statutory exclusion, 6; Treacy, Wayne, 6; Wemberly, Teah, 6 Adults and Children Together Against Violence, 340 Africa and school crime and violence, 7–11 Agnew, Robert, 443–44 Akers, Ronald, 371 Al-Arian, Sami, 352–53 Alcohol and school crime and violence, 11–14; binge drinking, 12–13; Canada, 82–83; property crimes, 369–70; responses, 378–80; social norms campaigns, 13, 157–60; suicide, 465–72; weapons, 12–13 Allaway, Charles, xxviii Al-Nazari, Mohammad, xxxi American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 14–15; corporal punishment, 112; dress codes, 144; drug testing, 60, 499–501;

677

678

Index

Athletes and crime and violence, high school, 28–33 Athletes and violence prevention, 33–35 Auvinen, Pekka-Eric, xxxv, 35–39 Barbaro, Anthony, xxvii Bartley, Kenny, xxxiv Basketball Diaries, 86, 296 Bath, Michigan, school bombing, 41–44, 95 Baylor College basketball murder case, 44–46 Beccaria, Cesare, 90 Becker, Howard, 261–62, 435 Bentham, Jeremy, 90 Berman, Alexa, 70 Beslan school hostage crisis, xxxiv, 46–49 Bethel School District v. Fraser, 491, 643 Bias, Len, 50–51 Big Brothers Big Sisters, 51–52 Biological theories, 52–56 Bishop, Amy, xxxvi, 56–59, 368–69 Board of Ed. of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie Count v. Earls, 59–62, 154, 419, 643, 647–57 Body type, 54 Booker, Quinshawn, xxxii Bosse, Sebastian, xxxv, 62–63, 259 Bowling for Columbine, 63–64, 277–78, 335, 354 Boys and Girls Club of America, 35 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 216 Brazill, Nathaniel, xxxiii, 65–67 Brewer, Michael, 67–69 Brown, Asher, 70 Brown, Nathaniel, xxxvi Bullycide, 69–71; LGBTQ, 69–71, 430–34 Bullying, xxxvii, 9–10, 69–71, 72–80, 161, 386–89, 515–16, 553–59; bullycide, 69–71, 364–66, 430–34; Bully Police, 78–79; Canada, 82; cyberbullying, 72, 76–77, 118–23, 364–66, 484, 486–87; fiction, 180–84; girls, 75, 331–33, 364–66, 515–16; LGBTQ, xxxvii, 15–16, 69–71, 73, 75–76, 96, 252–54, 430–34; parents, 339–41; state rankings, 78–80; Stop Bullying Now, 460–61; teacher-perpetrated, 73, 479–82 Bullying, college, 72–74, 409–11 Bullying, high school, 74–77

Bullying laws, 78–80, 553–59 Bush, Elizabeth, xxxiii Bush, George W., 318–19 Buschbacher, Chris, xxxiii Bystander interventions, 34 Cambridge Youth Study, 241 Campus Carry, 351 Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act, 551 Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act, 356–57, 552 Campus Sexual Assault Bill of Rights, 356–57, 552 Canada and school crime and violence, 81–84, 210–12, 266–71, 359–61 Capitalism, 104–108, 444–45 Carneal, Michael, xxxi, 84–87, 280, 315 Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA), 146, 148 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 12–13, 20, 87–88, 130, 265; bullying, 340; dating violence, 140–41; public health approach, 376–77 Central Asia Institute (CAI), 88–90 Chambliss, William, 262, 461–62 Cheating, 231–33 Chivalry hypothesis, 208 Cho, Seung-Hui, xxxv, 279, 322, 362, 487, 507, 517–20 Choice theories, 90–93 Chomsky, Noam, 105 Christian, John, xxviii Classical school of criminology, 90–93 Clementi, Tyler, 70 Clery Act, 93–95, 157, 176, 263, 356–59, 552, 635–42 Clinton, Bill, 142, 313, 335, 402–4 Cloward, Richard, and Ohlin, Lloyd, 443 Cohen, Albert, 443 Cohen, Lawrence, 92 Cohen, Stanley, 175–77 College campuses, 93–94, 165–69, 176–77, 179, 184–86, 222–24, 305–7, 321–23, 327–28, 343–45, 350–51, 356–59, 366–69, 378–80, 510–14, 517–20, 524–28, 633–35 Collins, Curtis, xxix

Index

Columbine, 279 Columbine High School massacre, xxiii, 18, 29, 95–99, 164–165, 179, 210–11, 279, 322, 390, 461–62 Cooley, Charles Horton, 261 Comer School Development Program, 349–50 Comprehensive Crime Control Act, 99–101 Concealed carry laws, 216–17 Conflict resolution/peer mediation, 101–4, 348, 391–93 Conflict theories, 104–8 Control theories, 108–10 Coon, Asa, xxxv, 2, 110–12 Cordova, Victor, xxxii Corporal punishment, 1, 7–11, 15–16, 112–13, 288–89, 384–85, 450–51 Craft, Christopher, 363 Crime and violence in private secondary schools, 113–16 Crime Stoppers, 116–18 Critical theories, 445 Cullen, Dave, 279 Cultural transmission theory, 444 Cyber-offenses, 118–23; dating violence, 131; Facebook, 121, 439–41; MySpace, 121, 439–41; YouTube, 121 Cyber-offenses, college, 118–20 Cyber-offenses, high school, 120–23 Dann, Laurie, xxix, 125–28, 280, 362 Dating violence, 30, 32, 128–33; DELTA project, 140–41; Expect Respect, 173–74; laws, 559–63; prevention, 132; technology, 131 Dating violence, college, 128–30 Dating violence, high School, 130–33 Davidson, Frederick, xxxi Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 133–135, 428, 643 Delinquent trajectories, 242 Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine attack on Ma’alot School, xxvii, 135–38 Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 355 Detention: The Siege at Johnson High, 234 Deterrence, 92–93 Developmental tasks theory, 242 Dhein, Alaa Abu, xxxvi, 138–40

Dickens, Charles, 180–81 Differential association theory, 208, 435 District of Columbia v. Heller, 218 Doe v. Renfrew, 643 Domestic violence, 2, 15, 140–41 Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancements and Leadership Through Alliances (DELTA) program, 140–41 Donovan, John, 367 Doom, 96 Do Something, 141–42, 539 Dress codes, 142–44; gangs, 143–44 Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.), 145–46 Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), 351 Drug offenses, college, 146–49 Drug offenses, high school, 149–52 Drug testing, 59–62, 152–154, 419, 499–501 Drugs, 50–51; ADHD, 148, 150; Canada, 82–83; CASA, 146, 148; college, 146–49, 502; D.A.R.E., 145–54; high school, 149–52; marijuana, 146–47; prescription, 147–48, 150; South America, 448–52; testing, 152–54 Due process, 214–15 Dugdale, Richard, 52–54 Duke University lacrosse team sexual assault case, 154–56 Duncan, Arne, xxxvii Durkheim, Emile, 442 Eastwood, Bruco, xxxvi Ecological systems theory, 371–72 Educational programs and training, 157–63 Educational programs and training, college 157–60 Educational programs and training, high school, 160–63 Elementary schools and crime and violence, 163–64, 333–35, 380–83, 453–55, 458 Elephant, 164–65 Elliott, Nicholas, xxix Emergency response plans, 165–69, 513 European Union and school crime and violence, 35–39, 169–73, 219–21, 258–59, 401–2, 456–60 Expect Respect, 173–74

679

680

Index

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 356–57 Family Violence Prevention Fund, 34 Fear of school crime and violence, 175–77 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 178–80, 223 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 167–68, 176 Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 381–82 Felson, Marcus, 92 Female perpetrators, 125–28, 331–33 Feminism, 266–71 Ferris, Nathan, xxviii Fiction and school crime and violence, 180–84, 296, 534–38 Films, 164–65, 296–301, 313–14, 659–63 Finland, xxxv, 35–39 Flores, Robert, xxxiii, 184–86 Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 361–63 Frabricant, Dr. Valery, xxix Franklin v. Gwinett County Public Schools, 428 Fraser, Matthew, 187 Freechild Project, 538–40 Free speech, 14, 186–89, 490–92 Freire, Paulo, 538 Freud, Sigmund, 108, 207–08 Gadyrov, Farda, xxxvi Gambling, 191–93; athletes, 192–93; online poker, 192; prevention, 192 Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.), 193–95 Gangs and school crime and violence, 195–99, 450–51, 515; G.R.E.A.T., 193–95 Gay/straight alliance (GSA), 433–34 Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), 69–71, 75–77, 433 Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 643 Gender and school crime and violence, college, 199–203 Gender and school crime and violence, high school, 203–7 Gender-related theories, 207–10 General strain theory, 443–44 General theory of crime (GTC), 109–10 Genetics, 52–56

Germany, xxxiii, 62–63, 258–59, 456–60 Gibson, Greg, 273 Gill, Kimveer, xxxiv, 210–12 Gillom, Edward, xxx Giroux, Henry, 538 Glen Ridge, New Jersey, rape incident, 212–13 Glueck, Sheldon and Eleanor, 241 Goffman, Erving, 437 Golden, Andrew, xxxii, 280 Gone Boy: A Walkabout, 273 Goring, Charles, 53–54 Goss v. Lopez, 187, 214–15, 644 Gottfredson, Michael, 109–10 Gramsci, Antonio, 105–6 Grutter v. Bollinger, 644 Guns, 351–52; assault weapons, 381–82; college, 351–52; legislation, 215–18, 220, 259, 551, 563–631 Gun Control Act of 1968, 215 Gun control legislation, 215–18, 220, 259, 551; Germany, 259, 459; Great Britain, 220 Hagan, John, 208 Hainstock, Eric, xxxiv Halder, Biswanath, xxxiv Halligan, Ryan, 70, 439 Hamilton, Thomas, xxxi, 219–21 Hamilton Fish Institute, 17, 221–22 Harclerode, Jack, 367 Harless, Jason, xxviii Harris, Eric, xxxii, 63–64, 95–99, 164–65, 210–11, 262, 279, 315, 362, 507 Hate crimes, 14–15, 452–53, 513, 551 Hate crimes, college, 222–25 Hate Crimes Statistics Act, 223 Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 239, 491, 644 Hazing, 29–30, 225–31; alcohol, 226–27, 228 Hazing, college, 225–28, 503, 512–13 Hazing, high school, 228–30, 506–7 Hazing, laws, 230–31 Heard, Robert, xxix Hegemony, 105–6 Henkle v. Gregory, 429–30 Hirschi, Travis, 109–10, 208, 371 Hoffman, Jason, xxxiii Honor codes, 231–33

Index

Hostile environment, 427–28 Hotspots, 93 Houston, Eric, xxix, 233–34 Hughes, Richard, 181 Human rights, 8–10, 112, 234–35, 343–44 Human rights education, 16, 234–36, 236–37, 343 Human Rights Education Associates, 235 Human Rights Watch (HRW), 8–10, 112, 236–37 In loco parentis, 239–40 Ingraham v. Wright, 112, 240 Integrated theories, 240–43 IQ, 53, 54–56 It Gets Better Project, 71 Jackson, Lawanda, xxx Jackson State massacre, xxvii Jeremy, 245–46 Johnson, Mitchell, xxxii, 280 Johnston, Jeffery, 70 Journals devoted to school crime and violence, 246, 674–76 Juvenile court, 5–6, 66–67 Katz, Jack, 91–92 Katz, Jackson, 209 Kazmierczak, Steven, xxxv, 321–23, 363 Kearby, James, xxviii Kehoe, Andrew, xxvii, 41–44 Kent State National Guard shootings, xxvii, 247–52 Kimmel, Michael, 209 King, Lawrence, 252–54 Kinkel, Kip, xxxii, 5, 255–58, 280, 362 Klebold, Dylan, xxxii, 63–64, 95–99, 164–65, 210–11, 262, 279, 315, 507 Kohn, Alfie, 538 Kozol, Jonathan, 538 Kretschmer, Tim, xxxvi, 258–59 Krueger, Paul, 368 Labeling theories, 261–62, 435–37 Lasaga, Anonio, 367 La Salle University sex scandal and cover-up, 263–64

Latin America and school crime and violence, 264–66 Laub, John, and Sampson, Robert, 241 Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, 217 Lawler, David, xxviii Laws, 356–59; college, 356–59 Lazotte, Patrick, xxviii Learning disabilities, 55–56 Ledeger, Keith, xxx Legislation, 99–101, 216–17, 220, 223, 259, 318–30, 356–58, 378, 381–82, 402–4, 415, 459, 551–643 Lemert, Edwin, 261 Le´pine, Marc, xxix, 209, 266–71 LGBTQ youth, xxxvii, 14–16, 73, 75–76, 252–54, 404–5, 430–34, 480–81 Liberation hypothesis, 208 Lo, Wayne, xxix, 271–73 Logan, Jessie, 70 Lombroso, Cesare, 53 Long, Tyler, 70, 364–65 Loukaitis, Barry, xxxi, 273–75, 315 Lu, Gang, xxix, 273, 275–76 Lucas, Billy, 70 Major League Baseball, 35 Manson, Marilyn, 63–64, 277–78 Marijuana, 146–47 Martinez, Max, xxx Marx, Karl, 104–8 McCoy, Jason, xxviii McDowell, Leonard, xxx McInerney, Brandon, xxxv McLaughlin, Jason, xxxiv Mead, George Herbert, 261 Media: Carneal, Michael, 86, 315, 507; Columbine High School massacre, 277–78, 315; fear, 175–77; Loukaitis, Barry, 315; moral panics, 175–177, 292–97; movies, 164–65, 296, 297–301, 313–14, 534–38, 534–38; news, 296–97; race, 383–85; Wurst, Andrew, 534–38 Mediation, xvii–xix Meier, Megan, 70, 439 Mental illness and school crime and violence, 278–80, 517–20, 522–23 Mentoring, 51–52, 280–83 Merton, Robert, 442–43

681

682

Index

Metal detectors, 283–85, 482–83, 487 Michael Minger Act, 358 Middle East and school crime and violence, 88–89, 135–38, 139–40, 286–89 Middle schools and crime and violence, 289–92 Moffitt, Terrie, 242 Monitoring the Future survey, 291–92 Moon, Joshua, 367 Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP), 32, 33–34 Moore, Fredrick, 198 Moral panics, 175–77, 292 Moral panics and campus crime and violence, 292–94 Moral panics and high school crime and violence, 294–97 Morrison, Duane, xxxiv, 280, 363 Morse v. Frederick, 644 Mortenson, Greg, 88–89 Movies and school crime and violence, 164–65, 296, 297–301, 313–14, 659–63 Murray, Thomas, 368 Music and school crime and violence, 210–11, 245–46, 277–78, 302–5, 534–38 Music Television (MTV), 245, 265, 302–5 Muslims and school crime and violence, 305–7, 390–91 MySpace, 14, 121 National Coalition Against Violent Athletes (NCAVA), 32 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), 24–28, 32, 44–45, 152–54, 155 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 114, 198 National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, 268–69 National Football League, 34–35; Youth Education Towns (YET), 34–35 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 12–13 National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence (NIAPV), 223 National School Safety Center, 309 National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC), 310–11 National Youth Survey, 312–13

National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center, 313–14 Natural Born Killers, 245, 314–16 Neblett, Rachel, 70 Neurology, 55 New Jersey v. T.L.O., 60, 153, 239, 316–18, 419, 500–1, 644 Nicholas Nickleby, 180–81 Nielsen, Flemming, xxx No Child Left Behind Act, 318–20, 415, 551 Northeastern University Center for Sport in Society, 35 Northern Illinois University shooting, 321–23 Northwestern High School sex scandal, 324–25 Obama, Barack, xxxvii, 70, 320 Odighizuwa, Peter, xxxiii, 327–28 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), 100, 329–31 Olweus, Dan, 74 Ophelia Project, 331–33 Osmanson, James, xxx Owens, Dedrick, xxxii, 333–35 Parens patriae, 337–39 Parents and school crime and violence, 339–41 Pathways to crime theory, 241–42 Peace and Justice Studies Association (PJSA), 341–42 Peace education, 341–50 Peace education, college, 343–45 Peace education, high school, 346–50 Pearl Jam, 245–46 Peer mediation, 101–4, 391–93 Pennick, Jeffrey, xxxii Pennies for Peace, 539 Pennington, Douglas, xxix, 350–51 Petkovic, Dragoslav, xxxiii Pitts, Marshawn, 384–85 Placencia, Mike, xxxiii Police and surveillance, 351–56 Police and surveillance, college, 351–53 Police and surveillance, high school, 354–56 Policies and campus violence laws, 356–59

Index

Poulin, Robert, xxviii, 359–61 Power-control theory, 208–9 Prejudice Institute, 224 Prescription drugs and school crime and violence, 280, 361–63; serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), 361–62; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), 361–62 Prince, Phoebe, xxxvi, 70, 364–66 Printz v. United States, 216 Pritchard, Jason, xxxiii Privacy rights, 152–54, 279–80, 283–85, 316–17, 353, 406–7, 419–21, 499–501 Private schools, 113–16 Professor-perpetrated crime and violence, 56–59, 366–69 Project Teamwork, 34 Property crimes, 369–76 Property crimes, college, 369–73 Property crimes, high school, 373–76 Prothrow-Stith, Deborah, 208, 376–77 Public health approach, xix, 376–78 Punitive responses, college, 378–80 Purdy, Patrick, 280, 362, 380–82 Quid pro quo, 427–28 Race and school crime and violence, 383–86; African Americans, 384–85, 416–17; zero tolerance, 291, 384–85, 416–17, 543–45 Rage, 296 Ramos, Corey, xxxiii Ramsey, Evan, xxxi, 2, 386–89 Rape myths, 30 Reckless, Walter, 108–9 Reed, Karter, xxx Religion and high school crime and violence, 389–91; Amish, 395–98; Christians, 390; Muslims, 305–7, 390–91 Resiliency, xx Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP), 348, 391–93 Restorative justice, 393–95 Risk and protective factors, 242–43 Robbins, Jillian, xxxi Roberts, Charles, xxxv, 395–98 Robinson, Robin, xxviii

Rodriguez, Andy, xxxvi Roth, J. Reece, 366–67 Rouse, Jamie, xxxi Routine activities theory, 92 Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), 644 Rural school violence, 399–400 Russia, xxxiv, 46–49 Saari, Matti, xxxv, 363, 401–2 Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA), 217, 378, 402–4, 551, 563–631 Safe Schools/GLSEN, 404–5 Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, 406–7, 419–20, 644 Saints and the Roughnecks, 262, 461–62 Save the Children, 407–9 Schmitt, Eric, xxx School crime and school climate, 409–14 School crime and school climate, college, 409–11 School crime and school climate, high school, 411–13 School Crime Victimization Survey, 413–15 School resource officers (SROs), 355 School-to-prison pipeline, 385, 415–18, 543–45 Search and seizure, high school, 14, 418–21 Security on Campus, Inc., 223, 421–22 Seductions of crime theory, 91–92 Sexting, 22 Sexual assault crimes, college, 422–25 Sexual assault crimes, high school, 425–27 Sexual harassment, 9–10, 133–35, 199–207, 287–89, 367–68, 422–25, 425–27, 427–30 Sexual orientation and school crime and violence, college, 430–32 Sexual orientation and school crime and violence, high school, 432–34 Sexual violence, 9–10, 15, 72, 95, 133–35, 154–56, 157–59, 199–207, 263, 287–89, 324–25, 367–68, 422–25, 425–27, 455–56, 633–35 Sheets, James, xxxiv Sheldon, William, 54 Shrout, Clay, xxx Siler, Jamar, xxxv

683

684

Index

Simon, Rita, 208 Sincino, Tony, xxxi, 362 Situational crime prevention, 93 Skin-cutting, 506 Slobodian, Michael, xxviii Smith, Todd, xxxii Snow, Albert, 367 Social bond theory, 109–10, 208, 371 Social disorganization theory, 208 Social learning theories, 371, 434–38 Social networking, 77, 118–23, 438–41, 484–85, 486–87 Social structure theories, 441–46 Solomon, T. J., xxxii, 5, 362, 446–48 South America and school crime and violence, 448–52 Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), 224, 452–53 Spencer, Brenda, xxviii, 2, 453–55 Spur Posse, 455–56 Steinha¨user, Robert, xxxiii, 62, 259, 456–60 Stop Bullying Now, 340, 460–61 Strain theory, 442–43 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), 340 Suburban school violence, 461–65 Suicide, 465–72; bullycide, 69–71, 364–66, 430–34 Suicide, college, 465–69 Suicide, high school, 469–71, 504–6 Supreme Court (U.S.), 59–62, 112, 133–35, 144, 153–54, 186–87, 214–15, 216, 218, 239, 240, 316–18, 406–7, 419, 428, 429–30, 491–92, 500–1, 538, 643–45, 647–57 Surveillance, 283–85, 351–56 Sutherland, Edwin, 208, 435 Systemic/structural violence, college, 472–75 Systemic/structural violence, high school, 475–78

Technological responses, high school, 482–85 Technology and campus crime and violence, 486–88 Teen courts, 488–90 Terrorism, 135–39; domestic, 352 Testosterone, 209 Theories: biological, 52–56; choice, 90–93; classical school, 90–93; conflict, 104–8; control, 108–10; cultural transmission, 444; delinquent trajectories, 242; deterrence, 92–93; developmental tasks, 242; ecological, 371–72; feminist, 207–10, 266–71; general theory of crime, 109–10; integrated, 240–43; labeling, 261–62, 435–37; learning, 208, 435; strain, 443–44 Timeline of significant events related to school crime and violence, xxvii–xxxvii Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 144, 186–87, 239, 418, 490–92, 538, 645 Title IX, 427–28 Todd, Joseph, xxxi Tom Brown’s Schooldays, 181 Treacy, Wayne, xxxvi, 6, 492–93 Trickey, Seth, xxxii Twin studies, 54–55

Takuma, Mamoru, xxxiii Tannenbaum, Franklin, 436 Tate, James, xxxiii Teacher-perpetrated crime and violence, high school, 479–82 Teaching Tolerance, 453

Varinecz, Trevor, xxxvi Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 61, 153, 240, 419, 499–501, 645 Victimless offenses, college, 501–4 Victimless offenses, high school, 504–7 Video cameras, 355, 483–84, 487

Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), 368, 374 United Kingdom, 219–21 United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 265, 287–88, 450, 495–96 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 16 U.S. Department of Education, 496–97 U.S. Department of Justice, 497–98 U.S. v. Lopez, 645 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 234–35 University of Central Arkansas, xxxv Utilitarianism, 91

Index

Video games, 96, 210–11, 321, 387, 401–2, 507–10, 521–24 Vietnam War, 247–52 Violent nonsexual crimes, college, 510–14 Violent nonsexual crimes, high school, 514–17 Virginia Tech massacre, 179, 322, 487, 513, 517–19 Weise, Jeff, xxxiv, 179, 279, 362, 521–24 White, Joseph, xxix White Ribbon Campaign, 268–69 Whitman, Charles, xxvii, xxxiii, 519, 524–28 Williams, Christopher, xxxiv Williams, Latina, xxxv Williams, Steven, xxxiii Wilson, James William Jr., xxix, 280, 362

Wimberly, Teah, xxxvi, 528–29 Witsell, Hope, 70 Woodham, Luke, xxxi, 529–33 Wurst, Andrew, xxxii, 534–36 Young, Jock, 175 Youth activism, 537–39 Youth Crime Watch of America (YCWA), 539–41 Youth Gang Survey, 198 YouTube, 35–39 YouTube Killer, 35–39 Yuyuan, Xu, xxxvii Zero-tolerance laws, 291, 416–17, 534–45; ACLU, 14; Canada, 84, 163–64, 384–85, 543–45 Zinkhan, George, 368 Zinn, Howard, 538

685

This page intentionally left blank

About the Editor and Contributors

Editor Laura L. Finley earned her PhD in sociology from Western Michigan University in 2002. She is currently Assistant Professor of Sociology and Criminology at Barry University. Dr. Finley is the author or co-author of eight books. She has also authored numerous book chapters and journal articles. In addition to her academic work, Dr. Finley is a community peace activist, with active involvement in local, national, and international groups. She regularly presents on topics related to peace and social justice and is a domestic and dating violence trainer. In addition, Dr. Finley is co-chair of the South Florida Diversity Alliance and is on the Board of Directors of No More Tears, a nonprofit organization that provides individualized assistance to victims of domestic violence and their children. Dr. Finley is also a member of the Board of Directors of Amnesty International USA and Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty.

Contributors Natasha Abdin is a student at Florida International University. She is actively involved with numerous community social justice activities. Rebecca Ajo graduated in 2009 from Barry University in Miami with a degree in criminology. She is currently preparing for law school. Megan Barnes is an undergraduate student at Barry University, pursuing a bachelor of science degree in sociology. She plans to attend medical school upon graduation and specialize in women’s health.

687

688

About the Editor and Contributors

Eric Bellone is an Assistant Professor of Legal Studies at Suffolk University. He is also a doctoral student in law, policy, and society at Northeastern University. His research focuses on specialized courts and the impact of technology on the legal process. Tiffany Bergin is a PhD candidate in criminology at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. She also obtained her MPhil in criminological research at Cambridge and received her BA with highest honors from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. Ben Brown is Associate Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Texas–Brownsville. His work has been published in more than a dozen academic journals. Dennis Bulen, PhD, is Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at Wright State University–Lake Campus. Mary Christianakis, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Education at Occidental College. She offers a course on U.S. Supreme Court cases related to education, as well as a course entitled “Prisons, Schools, and the Popular Media.” She also teaches creative writing to incarcerated youth. Justin Corfield teaches history and international relations at Geelong Grammar School in Australia. He has written extensively on topics connected with history and politics, and is the author or co-author of a number of books. Patrice Delevante holds an MA in gender and cultural studies from Simmons College. Her work has appeared in Ms. Magazine and Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History. Darius Echeverria, PhD, is Professor of History and of Latino and Hispanic Caribbean Studies at Rutgers University. His work focuses on Latino studies, comparative ethnic studies, U.S. political history, and Mexican American history. Katie Ellis is the author of Disabling Diversity. She received a PhD in communications, disability, and media from Murdoch University in 2005 and has recently returned there to lecture in the School of Media Communication and Culture. Curtis Fogel is a PhD candidate in the Department of Sociology at the University of Calgary in Canada. His primary research interests are in deviance in sport. His

About the Editor and Contributors

doctoral dissertation explores the legal issue of consent in relation to violence, hazing, and performance-enhancing drug use in Canadian football. Tony Gaskew, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice and Coordinator of Criminal Forensic Studies at the University of Pittsburgh at Bradford. Aviva Twersky Glasner is Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Bridgewater State University. She also coordinates internships for the program. Arthur Holst, PhD, is Government Affairs Manager at the Philadelphia Water Department. He has previously contributed to other academic works, including the Encyclopedia of Juvenile Violence. Jun Sung Hong is a doctoral student in the School of Social Work at the University of Illinois. Hui Huang is a doctoral student in the School of Social Work at the University of Illinois. Wendell Johnson is Social Science Librarian at Northern Illinois University. Angelica Jones is a candidate for a juris doctorate at Stetson University College of Law. Her areas of interest include entertainment and international law. Njoki-Wa-Kinyatti is an Associate Professor and Reference Librarian and Collection Development Coordinator of the Library at York College of The City University of New York. She specializes in gender discrimination in education and violence in Africa. Carol Lenhart, PhD, received her bachelor’s degree from State University of New York–Brockport, and earned her master’s and doctorate degrees from the University of Delaware. She is currently Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Elmira College. Karen Lindsey is a doctoral student in anthropology at American University. Her research interests include linguistics and the role of media in the social construction of history in the late modern era. Len Lubitz is on hiatus from a PhD program at the City University of New York. He is currently working with a Lebanon-based nongovernmental organization

689

690

About the Editor and Contributors

dedicated to the cause of the missing and detainees who are neither free nor accounted for. Joan Luxenburg received her EdD from Columbia University. She is currently Professor of Sociology, Criminal Justice, and Substance Abuse Studies at the University of Central Oklahoma. Doreen Maller is a marriage and family therapist in private practice in Northern California as well as the Program Director of John F Kennedy University’s Holistic Studies Master’s in Counseling Psychology department. Meghan McHaney is in the MSW program at the University of Illinois. Claudia Megele is an author, researcher, and practitioner with extensive experience in both voluntary and statutory sectors. She has presented her research and papers in various national and international conferences. Ms. Megele is a founding director of A Sense of Self (http://asenseofself.org) and a board member in various organizations. Elizabeth J. Meyer is Assistant Professor of Education at Concordia University in Canada. Her work focuses on homophobia, bullying, and harassment in schools. Patit Paban Mishra is a professor in the Department of History at Sambalpur University in India. Mishra has authored more than 200 articles related to Asian history. Richard Mora is a PhD candidate in sociology at Harvard University. He is currently Assistant Professor of Sociology at Occidental College. Jonathan William Olson is a PhD student in the Department of Religion at Florida State University. His primary area of interest is in the intersection between religion and violence in American culture. Andrea Quinlan is a PhD student in the Department of Sociology at York University. She is currently researching the legal handling of sexual assault in Canada. Elizabeth Kelley Rhoades is an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Houston–Victoria, where she teaches courses in school psychology, human development, and biopsychology

About the Editor and Contributors

Roger I. Roots, JD, PhD, is an assistant professor of criminal justice and behavioral science at the New York Institute of Technology (in Old Westbury, New York. His primary areas of research include corrections history and criminal procedure. Nick Sciullo, JD, is an independent scholar whose publication and conference speaking revolves around issues of law, race/class/gender, and critical theory. Jeffrey Shantz, PhD, teaches human rights and community advocacy at Kwantlen Polytechnic University in Vancouver, British Columbia. He is also a union and antipoverty organizer. Scott Sheidlower is Assistant Professor and Head of Information Literacy at York College at the City University of New York. Kamesha Spates, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Colorado State University–Pueblo. Her research interests include race relations, criminology, mental health, and qualitative methodologies. Christopher J. Stapel is a PhD candidate in sociology at the University of Kentucky. His research focuses on the intersection of rural sociology, sociology of education, and sociology of sexualities. He is a former public high school mathematics teacher. James Steinberg, PhD, is Associate Professor of Sociology at Wright State University–Lake Campus. Sharon Thiel graduated from Florida Atlantic University with a master’s degree in sociology. She currently works as a volunteer coordinator at a nonprofit organization. Ebony Thomas is in the MSW program at the University of Illinois. Sandra Gall Urban is Instructor/Head of Cataloging and Acting Head of Reference Services at York College of the City University of New York. Sheena Vega graduated from Florida Atlantic University in 2008 with a degree in English literature. She recently finished teaching English in a program in Santiago, Chile.

691

692

About the Editor and Contributors

Annika Vorhes is currently attending Wright State University–Lake Campus, where she is studying human behavior. She plans to pursue a degree in clinical psychology. Gerald Walton is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Education at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario. His research focuses on analyzing bullying as a social phenomenon rather than as mere bad behavior. Stan C. Weeber is Associate Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice at McNeese State University. His interests in sociology include sociological theory, political sociology, social movements, and the sociology of violence. He is the author of 13 books and numerous journal articles. Robert Worley is Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Texas A&M University–Central Texas. Among his other work, he has previously contributed to the Encyclopedia of Juvenile Violence.