bullying essay 2

Assessing the Impact of Emerging Anti-bullying Legislation On Children and Youth

ABSTRACT: Recent cases of bullied youth committing suicide, or “bullycide,” have led to legal

approaches to deter aggressive behaviors in schools. Anti-bullying legislation has been adopted

in every state to prevent the victimization of youth, but the focus on deterring and criminalizing

individual behavior can obscure the contextual factors that contribute to aggression. As states

across the country adopt and strengthen policies to discourage peer victimization, it is unclear

how students adapt their behaviors in light of their understandings of the potential consequences

for being caught engaging in aggressive behaviors. Sanction avoidance strategies would

undermine goals to improve inclusiveness in schools, would render negative behaviors and

interactions less visible to adults, and would leave unprotected groups more vulnerable. We

argue that the majority of current anti-bullying definitions and protocols in use are ambiguous

and insufficient in protecting vulnerable groups of students. We provide a lens for understanding

peer aggressive behavior from a sociological and contextually specific perspective. The

framework engages stigma and account-making theory to discuss the ways students become

particularly vulnerable to victimization and may or may not be sufficiently protected under the

law. We also engage criminological theories to understand how punishment may not be sufficient

for preventing aggressive behavior, but may instead lead students to employ strategies to avoid

being caught or punished for their behaviors. Finally, we offer recommendations to schools for

promoting an inclusive school environment and protecting particularly vulnerable students.

1

INTRODUCTION

Bullying in schools has been framed by social scientists as an increasingly problematic

behavior, particularly due to the uncertainties caused by digital forms of communication that are

popular among children. News media have focused on a rash of tragic cases involving youth who

took their own lives after enduring chronic experiences of victimization, leading to the coining of

the new term “bullycide.” Research has affirmed that the increased risk of suicide is among the

many potential adverse consequences of victimization (Rigby, 2003). Some other negative

outcomes associated with bullying and aggressive behavior can include risk to individual

victims, such as distress or poor school performance (Bhutani et al, 2014; Putallaz et al. 2007).

As such, the role of schools in preventing victimization has been under scrutiny. It is clear that

the deadly consequences of youth interpersonal aggression, whether self-directed or externalized,

have put these phenomena into public focus and led to punitive social control measures and

legislation to deter bullying from occurring.

The goals of this paper are to: a.) render meaning to the rapid growth of broad and

ambiguous legal statutes on bullying and their consequences for children and youth;

b.) explain why a punitive approach to bullying may lead to more nuanced rule circumvention

rather than a reduction in aggressive behavior; and c.) consider the ways in which legal

interventions may be not be improving matters for already stigmatized groups. We begin by

reviewing the sociological literature on bullying and aggressive behavior, and survey the legal

landscape in schools arising and expanding in the last five years, to argue that the current

definitions of bullying behavior leave particular targets of aggression vulnerable. We provide a

sociological framework for understanding peer aggressive behavior, and we engage stigma and

account-making theory to discuss the ways students become vulnerable to victimization and may

or may not be sufficiently protected under the law. We also incorporate discussion of

criminological theories to understand how punishment may not be sufficient for preventing

aggressive behavior, but may instead lead students to circumvent the rules by employing

strategies to avoid being caught or punished for their aggressive behaviors.

The Criminalization of Bullying

In response to the recent moral panic about bullying behavior, some states have sought to

deter and punish aggressive behavior in a way that is similar to the zero tolerance and “get

tough” approaches that have a long history in schools. The criminalization of bullying is

reflected in state legislation that expands the role of the criminal justice system in managing

serious forms of bullying as criminal conduct, and creating or modifying existing criminal

statutes to apply to bullying behaviors (Sacco, Silbaugh, Corredor, Casey, & Doherty, 2012, p.

9). These legal interventions are designed to trigger an immediate response to aggressive

behavior that involves mandatory reporting, investigation, and punishment, shifting the focus

onto the individuals involved, and precluding opportunities for mediation or examination of

community-level factors that may have contributed to them.

Aubrun and Grady (2000) argue that youth are perceived by the public as stuck in an “in-

between status;” on one hand, most people believe that students, especially teenagers, are old

enough to know better than to victimize others and follow the rules. On the other hand, teenagers

who engage in aggressive behavior are young enough to be considered minors under the law and

must have their behaviors regulated by school institutions. This liminality, or “in between,”

status affects opinions on appropriate sanctions for bullying behavior, and serves as justification

for a paternalistic and punitive model of preventing aggression. This model includes the

introduction of school policies as well as specific legal interventions that illegalize behaviors that

could be considered free speech for adults, such as cyberbullying (Jones, 2013, p.747-748).

Students who bully are depicted as individuals making deliberate choices that they know are

wrong, and thus, they are viewed as capable of changing their behavior to avoid school sanctions

and legal interventions. Accordingly all fifty states have codified forms of anti-bullying

legislation (Pelley 2015), but it is unclear whether sanctions alone are enough to prevent

aggressive behaviors inside and outside of schools. The punitive approach to reducing bullying

emphasizes deterrence, focuses on individual level motivations, and generally overlooks

contextual and social factors that foster specific types of aggression. Furthermore, the laws are

replete with ambiguous and "overly broad" definitions of bullying behavior, which may

complicate adult decision-making on when to intervene in peer conflict (Donoghue and Raia-

Hawrylak, 2015; Cascardi, Brown, Iannarone, & Cardona, 2013; Carrera, DePalma, and

Lameiras 2011).

In New Jersey, the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (2010) is described as the toughest

and most inclusive in the nation (Pelley 2015). Under the law, reports of aggression for any

reason can be subject to investigation and sanctions, but its language specifically protects those

who are victimized because of their "race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender,

sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or a mental, physical or sensory disability"

(New Jersey Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act, 2010). Public schools in New Jersey provide

student codes of conduct, guidelines, or handbooks that clearly spell out the rights of protected

categories. Assemblies and curricula are also used to reinforce the message that aggression

against particular categories of students is tantamount to discrimination. In addition, students are

likely to notice teachers’ vigilance and even severity in intervening or sanctioning the use of

terms such as “retarded” in the classroom, thus acquiring a sense of the “taboo” and prohibited

nature of victimizing individuals who are considered disabled. Therefore, youths may learn the

message that they should simply target other groups of students for aggression so that they will

not be as harshly punished if they are caught.

Critics of recent legislation argue that while children at various stages of development

participate in bullying, harsh punishments apply to children as young as those in kindergarten,

who may lack the competency to be deterred. This criticism has led some states to grant teachers

discretion over when to punish or to investigate, which can lead to unpredictable and uneven

sanctions. These responses lead not only to the increasing criminalization of school behavior but

also the reinforcement of broader fears about youth bullying (Hirschfield & Celinska, 2011, p.

5). These laws may also lead to stigmatization of those identified as "bullies," and this may lead

to the further perpetuation of their behavior (Becker, 1963; Bernburg, Krohn, and Rivera, 2006).

Circumventing the Rules

Most research on bullying focuses on individual-level characteristics, as in the effects of

age and gender on the likelihood of aggressing against others. For example, boys are more likely

to engage in physical violence, whereas girls are more likely to engage in relational or social

bullying (Donoghue & Raia-Hawrylak, 2016; Nansel et al., 2001); bullying rates typically peak

in middle school (Goldbaum, Craig, Pepler, & Connolly, 2007); and higher parental support

results in less involvement in bullying (Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009). There are

comparatively few studies, however, on the impact of social and contextual factors in the school

environment. For example, the decisions students make regarding where to carry out aggression

may in fact be a sign of how attuned they are to the field of potential sanctions they may face for

their actions.

The decisions students make regarding where to carry out particular forms of aggression

may suggest how savvy youth are to the field of potential sanctions they may face for their

actions. Following routine activities theory, certain spaces may have increased exposure and

reduced adult guardianship (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Osgood, Wilson, O’Malley, Bachman, &

Johnston, 1996). Students may deliberately engage in aggression in less supervised settings to

minimize the likelihood that they will face sanctions or obtain a mark on their permanent record,

which could jeopardize future plans and aspirations. Few studies have looked at the temporal and

spatial locations of aggression beyond in-person versus digital forms. Those that consider

location of aggression have looked at “hot spots” for violence in schools, such as hallways,

bathrooms, parking lots, stairwells, and cafeterias (Astor, Meyer, & Behre, 1999), where adults

may not claim responsibility for enforcement, and behaviors are less likely to directly be

observed.

Similarly, youth may balance the risks and rewards of engaging in particular forms of

aggression, and consider the prestige and vulnerability of specific targets before acting (Miethe

& Meier, 1994). Children may also select victims or victim types to target for aggressive acts

based on their perceptions about the law and their school environment. Certain victim categories

have long been protected from victimization by federal civil rights laws, such as race, national

origin, color, sex, age, disability, or religion. Several anti-discrimination statutes also apply to

institutions that receive federal funds or assistance, such as public schools. These include: Title

VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964), which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or

national origin; Title IX of the Education Amendments (1972), which prohibits discrimination on

the basis of sex; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973), which prohibits discrimination on

the basis of disability; and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), which prohibits

discrimination by state and local governmental entities on the basis of disability. In compliance

with these laws, schools are required to “promptly, thoroughly, and impartially investigate all

allegations,” develop policies prohibiting harassment, and have procedures in place to deal with

complaints (Maag & Katsiyannis, 2012, p.79). Students who are victimized due to their sexuality

are not protected explicitly by civil rights clauses unless the content of the aggression invokes

references to gender or gender performance. Similarly, victimization on the basis of physical

appearance, including characteristics such as bodyweight, are not protected. However, students

with disabilities, who have traditionally been a highly vulnerable group, likely benefit from the

specific designation as protected they receive under civil rights provisions that extend to cases of

state legislation that specify “protected groups” as related to bullying and aggression.

Few studies have examined patterns regarding the strategic choice of victims by

aggressors as they navigate potential sanctions. Aggressors may avoid victimizing members of

protected groups because they are viewed as victims and may elicit pity rather than scorn from

classrooms. Aggressors may also select victims who are not protected by civil rights provisions,

because their unprotected status may lessen the likelihood of intervention or punishment,

highlighting the shortcomings of existing anti-bullying legislation in some states and the need to

expand said legislation to be as inclusive as similar laws against workplace bullying. Aggressors

are also likely to engage in aggressive behaviors that enhance their social status by pointing out

the deviant characteristics of “deserving” others. Aggression that reinforces norms in the school

community may evade punishment or intervention, and students who target others who have

faults viewed as within their own control may be successful at moving up in the school’s social

status hierarchy (Faris and Felmlee, 2011).

Stigmatization and Victim Selection

According to Goffman (1963, p. 3), a stigma is any attribute possessed by a person that is

“deeply discrediting.” This characteristic causes a discrepancy between one’s virtual social

identity, or what a person is expected to be, and actual social identity, which may then be

described as “tainted” (p. 12). These stigma include “abominations of the body,” “blemishes of

individual character,” and “tribal stigma of race, nation, and religion” (p. 14-15). According to

Goffman, stigma results in the view that the bearer is “not quite human.” Stigmatized individuals

may even hold the same ideas about normality as others and develop shame as part of one’s self-

assessment. This can lead to insecurity and fear that one may be targeted or disrespected by

others at any time. School is cited by Goffman as the most common setting in which children

first become aware of their stigmas through the process of stigma learning (p. 42-43), yet

theorists have not explored the process of bullying and aggression through this perspective.

Particular types of “stigma symbols” and their visibility may lead individual bearing visible

stigma to experience more widespread victimization, potentially at the hands of individuals he or

she does not know well (p. 54-58).

Building on Goffman’s work on presentation of self and the role of performance in

maintaining identity (1959), Scott & Lyman (1968; Lyman & Scott 1970) originated the concept

of accounts, which are statements made to explain a deviant behavior or attribute. Orbuch (1997)

points out how people make meaning of their own lives and those of others through “story-like”

explanations that point to the meanings embedded in interactions (p. 455). The two primary types

of accounts are framed as justifications and excuses, and are deployed to maintain self-esteem or

social status in the face of stigmatizing experiences (Scott & Lyman, 1968). In situations of

victimization and aggression, the role of account-making and the creation of responses to

situations of stigmatization is important to understand how deviant characteristics are targeted

through norm-reinforcing behaviors and managed by those students who possess those

characteristics and may have diminished social status. Targeting others may divert attention from

one’s own deviant characteristics and preserve or promote the acquisition of additional social

status.

Accounts may reflect “culturally embedded normative explanations” (Orbuch, 1997, p.

460) and are viewed as packages of causal explanations, responsibility, and blame (Harvey et al.

1992). From this perspective accounts can explain not only why certain youth find others

responsible for deviant traits or behavior, and thus deserving of abusive behavior, but can also

why victims often suffer from depression and low self-esteem, as they may view themselves as

responsible for their failure to conform to school norms. Cooley (1902) and Mead’s (1934)

“looking glass self” and internalization of the generalized other is also relevant in cases where

aggression is targeted toward an individual due to a particular trait or characteristic that is

devalued in the community as a whole.

Simply diverging from peer norms has been found to be predictive of increased

involvement in bullying (Horowitz et al. 2004; Thornberg, 2011), yet there are a wide range of

characteristics that can be seen as potentially deviating from norms. In order to develop effective

interventions and prevention strategies, including legislation, it is important for practitioners to

understand which characteristics and groups are most vulnerable within a particular school

community. While many bullying prevention programs take a “one-size-fits-all approach, it is

possible that communities and cohorts within those schools develop unique norms. Aggressing

against others who defy those norms or values may serve various purposes, including preserving

the dominant culture and status hierarchy or enabling a student to assert his or her status over

someone viewed as inferior.

Upon learning about these laws in school, children may find that by strategically

aggressing against non-protected groups they can reduce their chances of punishment; and

aggression that reinforces norms in the school community, such as a rejection of the obese, may

aide them in moving up in the school’s social status hierarchy (Faris and Felmlee, 2011).

Previous studies focusing on acts against children with disabilities (e.g. Rose, Swearer, &

Espelage, 2012; Rose, Monda-Amaya, & Espelage, 2011; Whitney, Smith, & Thompson, 1994),

weight-based victimization (e.g. Puhl, Peterson, & Luedicke, 2013; Janssen, Craig, Boyce, &

Pickett, 2004; Pearce, Boergers, & Prinstein, 2002), and homophobic aggression (Kosciw, Diaz,

& Greytak, 2008; Norman & Galvin 2006), suggest that children do target victim types. In the

sections that follow, we consider social and contextual factors that may be at work in these cases.

Students with disabilities

Youth with disabilities have been found to be greater risk of victimization and aggression,

potentially due to the fact that they are typically more passive in peer relationships, more timid in

responses to peers, and more likely to misread social cues (Rose, Monda-Amaya, and Espelage,

2011; Sabornie, 1994). These failures to adhere to norms of interaction can lead to strain on the

part of a potential aggressor, who is frustrated and may not understand the underlying cause of

the communication failure. It is important to note that disability statuses are not dichotomous

(Rose, Swearer, and Espelage, 2012) but include a wide range of easily identified and less visible

classifications on a continuum. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement

Act (2004) these include intellectual, hearing, speech, orthopedic or visual impairments,

emotional disturbance, autism, traumatic brain injuries, specific learning disabilities and

developmental disorders.

While some of the aforementioned conditions may lead to a communication failure or a

violation of social norms, eliciting peer frustration and assignment of blame, more visible,

physical conditions that don't affect interaction may instead elicit sympathy. Many studies have

identified the connection between overt, visible, often physical disabilities and increased

mimicking or name-calling (e.g. McLaughlin, Byers, & Vaughn, 2010; Rose 2010). Dependence

on adults or special services may not only lead to stigma, but also the image of vulnerability.

Youth with learning and developmental disabilities, also known as invisible disabilities, are also

at elevated risk of victimization, though again rates vary by type of disability (Rose, Swearer,

and Espelage, 2012, Mischna 2003). For example, students taking medication for ADHD have

been found to experience more victimization than others (Unnever and Cornell, 2003). At the

same time, students with learning disorders may struggle to interpret verbal and nonverbal cues

and may have poorer social skills (Kaukianen 2011). Students with speech difficulties and

communication are particularly vulnerable; for example, adolescents who stutter are teased and

bullied more often than fluent peers (Erickson and Block, 2013). Autism spectrum disorders

provide another example of a potentially invisible or less visible category of disability, in which

students may exhibit difficulty in social relationships while functioning well or excelling in other

areas. While the victimization of students on the autism spectrum remains understudied, one

survey of mothers of students with Asperger’s Syndrome found that 94 percent of children with a

diagnosis faced various types of victimization (Little, 2002).

Some research, particularly stemming from the inclusion movement in the 1990’s,

supports the idea that the more restrictive environment a student with disabilities is placed in, the

more involved in victimization and perpetration a student is (Martlew & Hodson, 1991;

Sabornie, 1994). Being isolated in special classes may increase the visibility of a students’

disability more than for a student who is in mainstream classes and whose disability is more

difficult to detect. Students with emotional and behavioral disorders are more likely to bully, yet

bullying behaviors may be a symptom of conduct disorder itself (Maag & Katsiyannis 2012;

Rose, Swearer, and Espelage, 2012). This means that under increasingly punitive laws, students

may not only receive a conduct disorder label as a result of engaging in aggressive behavior, but

they may also acquire a disciplinary record and delinquency label under the provisions of these

laws.

Research pointing to the vulnerability of disabled students has led to a variety of

interventions and prevention programs focused specifically on this population. Examples include

a peer advocacy model and bystander trainings developed by the PACER Center’s National

Bullying Prevention Center, which seek to change the perception that disabled students are a

“deserving” group and to eliminate stigmatization. Other strategies leverage the legal protections

afforded to disabled students, including building bullying prevention strategies into a students

Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Parents of students with disabilities are also encouraged by

advocacy groups to use legal interventions and file civil rights claims under federal protections in

cases of persistent harassment or victimization on the basis of disability (Enough is Enough,

2013). In addition, legislation at the state-level that specifies protected groups would likely be

extended to cover students with disabilities in light of their protected status, and reports of

victimization of students with disabilities would trigger mandated reporting and investigation

procedures given the clear power differential if the aggressor is a typical student.

Weight-based stigmatization

Weight-based stigmatization is another common reason for victim targeting. Research has

shown that weight-based stigmatization begins in early childhood and peaks during the school

age and adolescent years, and has recently been found to be the most common reason for

victimization in schools (Browne 2012; Puhl, Luedicke, Heuer, 2011). This stigma is manifested

through stereotypes, biases, prejudices, and various forms of social rejection. Previous studies

have shown that overweight and obese adolescents are more likely to be victims of peer

aggression compared with average weight peers (Lumeng et al., 2010); studies have shown that

victimization is up to twice as likely among obese adolescents compared to their typical weight

counterparts (Hayden-Wade et al. 2005). Supporting Goffman’s theory regarding school as a first

venue for the experience of peer-based stigma, Warschburger (2005) found that discriminatory

and prejudicial attitudes toward overweight individuals emerge by age 3, an age when many

children enter preschool. Browne (2012) argues that weight bias is more tolerated than that

directed at other targets because stigma and shame are seen as effective motivating factors to

encourage and reinforce norms of thinness, pressuring people to diet and lose weight, and

viewing the inability to do so as a “personal failing” (p.108).

These attitudes may be socialized through agents including family, particularly parents

who feel blamed for their child’s weight and develop negative attitudes towards them and want

to encourage them to lose weight (Latner et al. 2005; Neumark-Sztainer, Falkner, Story, Perry,

Hannan, & Mulert, 2002); other socialization agents that can transmit negative messages about

bodyweight include teachers, peers, media, and other practitioners such as physicians (Lawrence

2010). An interactionist perspective on stigma and bodyweight must also consider the role that

adults such as teachers and other practitioners play in reinforcing the stigmatization process or

failing to intervene or enforce existing rules in cases of norm-reinforcing aggression. Teachers

and others are not immune to the societal attitudes that stigmatize overweight students and may

treat students in a biased way (Neumark-Sztainer, Story, and Harris 1999), including failing to

intervene. Parents who think they are protecting their children from future victimization by

encouraging them to “take control” of their weight may also foster anti-fat attitudes and stigma

through similar teasing to what is prohibited in schools under existing laws (Keery, Boutelle, van

den Berg and Thompson, 2005).

Students are exposed to interventions against aggression as per existing legislation and

anti-bullying interventions, which may make a difference, yet interventions designed to teach

children that bodyweight is not within a child’s control have been unsuccessful in reducing

stigma (Anesbury and Tiggeman, 2000). This may suggest that intervening in the account-

making process for explaining overweight status may not be as effective as instilling the fear of

punishment created by creating legal protections for particular characteristics or categories.

Young people may come to understand these legal protections and the consequences of violating

the rules as they get older, suggesting that sanction avoidance may potentially play a larger role

in whether overweight youth are targeted for aggression.

LGBT+ students

Finally, aggression against LGBT+ youth can range from homophobic, generalized

discourse to more serious forms and targeted forms, including physical violence. Studies have

documented the long-term harms associated with school based victimization of LGBT+ youth,

which include depression, suicidal ideation, and reduced life satisfaction and self esteem

(Russell, Ryan, Toomey, Diaz & Sanchez, 2011) and higher health risks. One study found that

males who were bullied because they were called gay experienced greater psychological distress

and more negative views of school than boys bullied for reasons other than being perceived as

gay (Swearer, Turner, Givens, and Pollack, 2008). A potential reason for these negative outcomes

could tie to adult attitudes toward homosexuality in a particular school context, and whether

adequate interventions take place against victimization. Similar to weight-based stigma and bias,

the attitudes of peers and adults about whether youth choose their sexual orientation can impact

whether norms of heterosexuality are reinforced through aggression. In communities or contexts

where heterosexuality is the norm for religious reasons in particular, adults and practitioners may

also be complicit in aggressive behaviors impacting youth perceived as gay or lesbian within

institutions that share or support those values. The fact that LGBT+ students are shown to

experience disproportionately poor outcomes following victimization points to a need for deeper

analysis of the many reasons youth may be victimized in a given school community, the

implications for the victims, and the reasons why legislation, and adults implementing said

legislation, may fail to act in a way that protects and supports vulnerable students.

Conclusion

It is clear that the use of anti-bullying legislation, which has expanded and spread to all

fifty states in recent years, is designed to prevent victimization and protect vulnerable student

populations beyond existing protections codified in civil rights laws. One study evaluating the

impact of recent anti-bullying efforts and legislation argues that the laws appear to be

minimizing the impact of bullying (Hatzenbuehler et al. 2015). Specifically, the study finds three

components of anti-bullying legislation to be particularly effective. According to Hatzenbuehler

et al. (2015), these components are that the law should include a statement of scope, a

description of prohibited behaviors, and implementation of policies at the local level of the

district. The first two components contributing to the legal intervention’s effectiveness relate

directly to the detail and specificity of definitions of bullying and designated protected groups.

Yet, the extent to which examples of state legislation incorporates these components varies, and

as such, so does their effectiveness in protecting students.

As outlined in this paper, with the exception of cases of legislation using the most

inclusive legal definition of bullying and the most liberal inclusion of protected categories, many

states fall short in protecting specific student populations. In some cases this victimization may

worsen as other groups become clearly “off limits.” In turn, students may attempt to avoid

punishment by selecting targets they view as less likely to elicit intervention in their school or

classroom setting. In particular, the literature supports claims that students with disabilities,

while clearly protected by federal civil rights laws, are likely to continue experiencing

victimization in the face of new and strengthened laws. This is likely because of the wide range

of disability statuses students may experience, including the visibility of their disabilities, and

how other students interpret behaviors they deem out of the norm. In addition, research has

affirmed the role that bodyweight plays in victimization in schools. The issue of bodyweight is

one that disproportionately affects a large percentage of American students; overall, 32% of the

population under age 18 is currently overweight or obese (Ogden, Carroll, & Flegal, 2008).

While general physical appearance and weight are not protected categories, this type of

victimization stands to impact a significant number of students if protections are not expanded.

More punishment is not the answer, nor is harsher punishment appropriate in response to

victimization of vulnerable groups. Instead, the federal protections and guidance offered to local

school districts must be expanded and clarified. While anti-bullying definitions need to be made

more explicit and inclusive of a variety of characteristics which could be targeted, federal civil

rights protections must also be expanded to address gaps and offer guidance for local district

anti-bullying policies. For example, there are currently no explicit federal protections for LGBT+

students, and discrimination typically must invoke elements related to gender or gender

performance to be eligible for legal recourse under civil rights provisions. Efforts in 2015 toward

reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act were held up as members of the

Senate disputed an amendment to protect LGBT+ students from harassment and intimidation in

public schools (Blad 2015). The Senate ultimately voted no, citing Title IX on gender and gender

expression, which a growing number of courts have argued extends to sexual orientation and

gender identity (Blad 2015). Advocacy groups have called for clearer definition under Title IX,

outlining schools’ obligations and offering guidance for codifying these protections under local

anti-bullying legislation.

In addition to bolstering protections, additional research is necessary to explore school-

based approaches that are contextually specific and responsive to the types of norm

reinforcement and victimization prevalent in those settings. School climate surveys can be used

to identify the types of victimization occurring in particular schools, and to identify vulnerable

populations in the specific context. In response to the data, school-based programs should be

designed to promote inclusion and awareness of all students, particularly those identified as

vulnerable, and to promote general positive school culture. When appropriate, harsh punishment

should be replaced with restorative justice practices, in an attempt to build positive relationships

between students and to change the culture and norms of victimization in a specific school

context.

References

Anesbury, T., & Tiggemann, M. (2000). An attempt to reduce negative stereotyping of obesity in

children by changing controllability beliefs. Health Education Research, 15, 145–152.

Astor, R.A., Meyer, H.A. & Behre, W.J. (1999). "Unowned Places and Times: Maps and

Interviews About Violence in High Schools." American Educational Research

Journal 36(1), 3-42.

Aubrun, A. & Grady, J. (2000). How Americans understand teens: Findings from cognitive

interviews. Frameworks Institute. Retrieved from

http://frameworksinstitute.org/assets/files/PDF/youth_understand_cog_interviews.Pdf

Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press.

Bernburg, J.G., Krohn, M.D. & Rivera, C.J.. (2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness,

and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of Research

in Crime and Delinquency 43, 67–88

Bhutani, R., Sudhir, P.M., & Philip, M. (2014). Teasing experiences, interpersonal sensitivity,

self-schema and psychological distress in youth: An Exploratory Study. Psychological

Studies 59, 241-251.

Blad, E. (2015). Senate votes down ESEA amendment designed to protect LGBT students.

Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-

k12/2015/07/senate_votes_snda_lgbt.html

Browne, N.T. (2012). “Weight bias, stigmatization, and bullying of obese youth.” Bariatric

Nursing and Surgical Patient Care 7(3), 107-115.

Carrera, M.V., DePalma, R., & Lameiras, M. (2011). Toward a more comprehensive

understanding of bullying in school settings. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 479-

499. doi: 10.1007/s10648-011-9171-x

Cascardi, M., Brown, C., Iannarone, M., & Cardona, N. (2014). The problem with overly broad

definitions of bullying: Implications for the schoolhouse, the statehouse, and the ivory

tower. Journal of School Violence 13, 253–276.

Cohen, L.E., & Felson, M. (1979). “Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity

approach.” American Sociological Review 44(4), 588-608.

Cooley, C.H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York, NY: Scribner’s.

Donoghue, C & Raia-Hawrylak, A. (2015). Moving beyond the emphasis on bullying: A

generalized approach to peer aggression in high school. Children & Schools. doi:

10.1093/cs/cdv042

“Enough is Enough: Anti-Bullying strategies for students with developmental disabilities, their

families, and their schools.” (2013). Developmental Disabilities Area Board 10 of the

State Council on Developmental Disabilities. Accessed online at

http://www.nlacrc.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1817

Erickson, S. and Block, S. (2013). “The social and communication impact of stuttering on

adolescents and their families.” Journal of Fluency Disorders 38, 311-324.

Faris, R. and Felmlee, D. (2011). Status struggles network centrality and gender segregation in

same-and cross-gender aggression."American Sociological Review 76(1), 48-73.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Goldbaum, S., Craig. W.M., Pepler, D. & Connolly, J. (2003). Developmental trajectories of

victimization: Identifying risk and protective factors." Journal of Applied School

Psychology 19(2), 139-156.

Hatzenbuehler, M.L, Schwab-Reese, L., Ranapurwala, S. I., Hertz, M.F., & Ramirez, M. R.

(2015). Associations between antibullying policies and bullying in 25 states. JAMA

Pediatrics 169 (10), 2411.

Hirschfield, P.& Celinska, K. (2011). Beyond fear: Sociological perspectives on the

criminalization of school discipline. Sociology Compass 5(1), 1-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-

9020.2010.00342.x

Horowitz, J.A., Vessey, J.A., Carlson, K.L, Bradley, J.F., Montoya, C., McCullaugh, B., David, J.

(2004). Teasing and bullying experiences of middle school students. Journal of the

American Psychiatric Nurses Association 10, 165–172.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

Janssen, I., Craig, W.M., Boyce, W.F., & Pickett, W. (2004). Associations between overweight

and obesity and bullying behaviors in school-aged children. Pediatrics 113, 1187–1193.

Jones, K. (2013). Chalk talks: #zerotolerance #KeepingupwiththeTimes: How federal zero

tolerance policies failed to promote educational success, deter juvenile legal

consequences, and confront new social media concerns in public schools. Journal of Law

and Education. 42(4), 739-749.

Kaukianen, J. (2012). Two wrongs don’t make a right: Why zero tolerance is not the solution to

bullying. Advancement Project, Alliance for Educational Justice,and GSA Network.

Retrieved from http://www.gsanetwork.org/files/aboutus/APJ-005_D5-

FINALsmall.pdf

Keery, H., Boutelle, K., van den Berg, P., and Thompson, J.K. (2005). The impact of appearance-

related teasing by family members. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, 120–127.

Kosciw J.G., Diaz E.M., & Greytak E.M. (2008). The 2007 National School Climate Survey:

The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans- gender youth in our nation’s schools.

New York: GLSEN.Retrieved from http://pennsec.org/wp-

content/uploads/2011/05/GLSEN-The-2007-National-School-Climate-Survey.pdf

Latner, J. D., & Schwartz, M. B. (2005). Weight bias in a child’s world. In K. D. Brownell, R. M.

Puhl, M. B. Schwartz, & L. Rudd (Eds.), Weight bias: Nature, consequences and

remedies (pp. 54–67). New York:Guilford Press.

Lawrence, S.A. (2010). “The Impact of stigma on the child with obesity: Implications for social

work practice and research.” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 27, 309-321.

Little, L. (2002). Middle class mothers' perceptions of peer and sibling victimization among

children with Asperger's Syndrome and nonverbal learning disorders. Issues in

Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 25(1), 43-54. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11934121

Lumeng, J.C,. Forrest, P., Appugliese, D.P., Kaciroti, N., Corwyn, R., Bradley, R. (2010). Weight

status as a predictor of being bullied in third through sixth grades. Pediatrics 125, e1301–

1307.

Lyman, S.M. and Scott, M.B. (1970). A sociology of the absurd. New York, NY: Appleton-

Century-Crofts, Inc.

Maag, John W., and Antonis Katsiyannis. (2012). "Bullying and Students with Disabilities: Legal

and Practice Considerations." Behavioral Disorders 37: 2: 78-86.

Martlew, M., & Hodson, J. (1991). Children with mild learning difficulties in an integrated and

in a special school: Comparisons of behaviour, teasing, and teachers' attitudes. The

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 355-372. doi:10.111 l/j.2044-8279.

1991.tb00992.x

Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Miethe, Terance D., and Robert Frank Meier. 1994. Crime and its Social Context: Toward an

Integrated Theory of Offenders, Victims, and Situations. Suny Press.

Mishna, F. (2004). A qualitative study of bullying from multiple perspectives. Children &

Schools, 26, 234–247.

Nansel, T. R., Haynie, D. L., & Simonsmorton, B. G. (2003). The association of bullying and

victimization with middle school adjustment. Journal of Applied School

Psychology, 19(2), 45–61.

Neumark-Sztainer, D., Falkner, N., Story, M., Perry, C., Hannan, P. J., & Mulert, S. (2002).

Weight-teasing among adolescents:Correlations with weight status and disordered eating

behaviors. International Journal of Obesity, 26, 123 – 131.

Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., and Harris, T. (1999). Beliefs and attitudes about obesity

among teachers and school health care providers working with adolescents. Journal of

Nutritional Education 31, 3–9.

New Jersey Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act, P.L. 2010, c. 122.

Norman, J. and Galvin, M. (2006). Straight Talk: An investigation of attitudes and experiences of

homophobic Bullying in secondary schools. Dublin City University.

Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., & Flegal, K. M. (2008). High body mass index for age among US

children and adolescents, 2003-2006. Journal of the American Medical Association, 299,

2401 – 2405.

Orbuch, T. (1997). People’s accounts count: The sociology of accounts. Annual Review of

Sociology 23, 455-478.

Osgood, D.W, Wilson, J.K., O'Malley, P.M., Bachman, J.G. &. Johnston. L.D. (1996). Routine

Activities and Individual Deviant Behavior." American Sociological Review 61(4), 635-

655.

Pearce, M.J, Boergers, J., and Prinstein, M.J. (2002). Adolescent obesity, overt and relational

peer victimization, and romantic relationships. Obesity, 10(5), 386-393. doi:

10.1038/oby.2002.53

Pelley, V. (2015). What’s the recipe for an effective anti-bullying policy. The Atlantic. Retrieved

from http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/11/anti-bullying-movement-

schools/415398/

Puhl, R.M., Peterson, J.L., & Luedicke, J. (2013). Strategies to address weight-based

victimization: Youth’s preferred support interventions from classmates, teachers, and

parents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 42(3), 315-327. doi: 10.1007/s10964-012-

9849-5

Putallaz, M., Grimes, C.L., Foster, K.J., Kupersmidt, J. & Coie, J.D. (2007). Overt and relational

aggression and victimization: Multiple perspectives within the school setting. Journal of

School Psychology 45, 523-547.

Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 48, 583-

590.

Rose, C.A., Monda-Amaya, L. E., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). Bullying perpetration and

victimization in special education: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special

Education, 32, 114-130. doi: 10.1177/0741932510361247

Rose, C.A., Swearer, S.M., & Espelage, D.L. (2012). Bullying and students with disabilities: The

untold narrative. Focus on Exceptional Children. 2(45), 1-10.

Russell, S.T., Ryan, C., Toomey, R.B., Diaz, R. M., and Sanchez, J. (2011). Lesbian, gay,

bisexual, and transgender adolescent school victimization: Implications for young adult

health and adjustment. Journal of School Health 81, 223-230.

Sabornie, E. J. (1994). Social-affective characteristics in early adolescents identified as learning

disabled and nondisabled. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 268279.

doi:10.2307/1511124

Sacco, D.T., Silbaugh, K., Corredor, F., Casey, J., & Doherty, D. (2012). An overview of state

anti-bullying legislation and other related laws. Retrieved from

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/State_Anti_bullying_Legisl

ation_Overview_0.pdf

Scott, M.B., and Lyman, S.M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review 33(1), 46-62.

Swearer, S.M., Turner, R.K., Givens, J.E., and Pollack, W.S. (2008). “’You’re so gay!’: Do

different forms of bullying matter for adolescent males?” School Psychology Review

37(2), 160-173.

Thornberg, R. (2011). “‘She’s weird’ – The social construction of bullying in school: A review of

qualitative research.” Children & Society 25(4), 258-267.

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (1990).

Title IV of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. (1964).

Title IX of the Education Amendments, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (1972).

Unnever, J.D. & Cornell, D.G. (2003). Bullying, self-control, and ADHD. Journal of

Interpersonal Violence, 81(2), 129-147.

Wang, J., Iannotti, R.J., and Nansel, T.R. (2009). "School bullying among adolescents in the

United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber." Journal of Adolescent

health 45(4), 368-375.

Warschburger, P. (2005). The unhappy obese child. International Journal of Obesity, 29 (Suppl.

2), s127–s129.

Whitney, 1., Smith, P K., & Thompson, D. (1994). Bullying and children with special

educational needs. In P. K. Smith & S. Sharp (Eds.), School bullying: Insights and

perspectives (pp. 213-240). London: Routledge.

Copyright of Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association is the property of American Sociological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.