what age to teach about hate crimes...

[kasia]

currently, the bar association that i belong to has a hate crimes program in which our lawyers give presentations to middle-school-aged children (ages 11-13). the program was implemented after 9/11 after an increase of racial tension in the classroom and racist views held by some children (based on what their parents have taught them) as well as the teachers themselves towards the south asian and middle eastern students.

my first question was why the program was given to children of this age. i was told at the meeting that people have commented that this was the best age. i disagree, and i think it's in part because the people making these comments are *adults* and have lost touch with what it is like to be a child/teenager. at the middle school level, though racism exists, it's not to the level that it exists in high school or college - where people will actually get jumped for their ethnicity, etc. people may argue, then, that we should hit them in the beginning before they start forming really racist beliefs. i, however, think that, if we teach them in middle school, they'll forget by the time they get to high school or college. consider the D.A.R.E. program. the same logic was used. that we'll catch them before they're exposed to the drugs. but the fact is that they won't remember. it would be so much more effective if the program were implemented in high schools - where they are actually facing the pressure on a daily basis. i feel the same way about our high school presentations on hate crimes. what do you guys think?

i've copied and pasted a random article i found on the web:

Bias is learned early, usually at home. But children from different cultures can be influenced by school programs and curricula. Sponsor an "I Have a Dream" contest. Target youths who may be tempted by skinheads or other hate groups.

Bias is learned in childhood. By the age of three, children are aware of racial differences and may have the perception that "white" is desirable. By the age of 12, they hold stereotypes about numerous ethnic, racial and religious groups, according to the Leadership Conference Education Fund. Because stereotypes underlie hate, and almost half of all hate crimes are committed by young men under 20, tolerance education is critical.

About 10 percent of hate crimes occur in schools and colleges, but schools can be an ideal environment to counter bias. Schools mix youths of different backgrounds, place them on equal footing and allow one-on-one interaction. Children are also naturally curious about people who are different.

[AngryABCGirl]

They had a program like DARE when I was in middle school-except it dealt with race and teaching us to be tolerate.

It went down to the shithole when I was in high school, I wasn't particularly fond of other people. Got better at the end, a lot better now that I"m in college, although that's the opposite for most people. I think it has to be continous teaching all the time. Plus your perceptions about the importane of race and which factors it affects your lives changes as you grow and change. When I was in elementary or jr high school I remember the only important part of race was which kids brought "weird" food to school and little things like that. In high school it takes on characteristics of gangs and jumpings and hostilities toward white authority figures, cops. etc. Then later on in college there's bitterness about admittance standards, possible future job setbacks, etc.

In other words, there's always another reason to be angry, and people need ot learn how to deal with that step by step. It'd be good to have some guidance.

[ism]

Children should be taught everything they can comprehend. I don't think drawing an analogy with the antidrug program is fair. The antidrug campaign is based on authoritarian ideology, and it's natural for authoritarians to encounter rebellion, especially in something a libertarian argument can easily pick apart. Children didn't forget "Just Say No," they actively rejected it.

Hate crimes are about egalitarianism. It may be said that it's authoritarian since hate crimes are based on legislation, but the core concept is about fairness. Given in the right language, children can understand hate crimes as race-based terrorism. It's not something they're going to forget.

[nonamerasian]

I think it’s good to start early.

I don’t think kids are as ignorant to the idea of stereotyping and the issues surrounding it as it may seem.

Unfortunately, some of their own parents introduced them to the idea.

[ChinaLama]

i kind of disagree about how hs is the first time you'll get jumpd for your ethnicity. little kids can be vicious, and also when they make racial jokes, they make them very explicitly.when i was in 3rd grade, 2 of my classmates used to physically torment (as in go up and kick her in the butt) a retarded student. So I don't see why 3rd - 5th graders would be so unlikely to torment someone for being of a different race.

[kasia]

oh - just a note. assume that we cannot provide the program for children of every grade level because of limitations on time and resources.

[kitty]

I think it should be taught as soon as possible. kids are perhaps more guilty than adults of discriminating based on race because kids are like... well... people on alcohol. fewer inhibitions, but certainly not blind to the things we all see.

If they can understand the concept of skin colour, they can learn why it's not good to discriminate because of it. I would say first or second grade would be a good time to start, and to continue reinforcing the ideas.

Also, I think it's good to not talk down to the kids. Re: antidrug campaign. That was just an oversimplification. People and kids respond better when a concept is explained to them, rather than hammered into their heads. Kids need to be taught why... and there's no age when they're too young to accept explanations. Just look at five year olds who constantly pester their parents with questions.

[ChairmanMah]

i agree with everyone who said that the younger kids are taught the better. I vaguely remember in elementary school people pulling their eyes slanted and singing songs like "chinese, japanese dirty knees etc."

[John0101]

I think kids are taught to hate and accept stereotypes at an early age from social insituations, TV, movies, etc. So we must equally teach kids not only about racism, sexism, etc, but how to accept other people.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

i agree with everyone who said that the younger kids are taught the better. I vaguely remember in elementary school people pulling their eyes slanted and singing songs like "chinese, japanese dirty knees etc."

It was Chinese (slant eyes upwards), Japanese (slant eyes downwards), dirty knees (point to kneecaps), look at these!' (ending by pointing to your nipples or chest area). I even remember me and my brother doing it for fun on the playground with other friends (mostly white) :frown: :rolleyes: :eek:

[nonamerasian]

It was Chinese (slant eyes upwards), Japanese (slant eyes downwards), dirty knees (point to kneecaps), look at these!' (ending by pointing to your nipples or chest area). I even remember me and my brother doing it for fun on the playground with other friends (mostly white) :frown: :rolleyes: :eek:

Some kids I grew up with taught me something like that.

They are Chinese.

They would get mad at me because I would screw up the eye part.

Their version went a little different. I don't remember the dirty knees part and if I remember correctly, I think it ended, "Look at me!"

There was another phrase somewhere in there, though.

[Faithless]

my first question was why the program was given to children of this age. i was told at the meeting that people have commented that this was the best age. i disagree, and i think it's in part because the people making these comments are *adults* and have lost touch with what it is like to be a child/teenager. at the middle school level, though racism exists, it's not to the level that it exists in high school or college - where people will actually get jumped for their ethnicity, etc. people may argue, then, that we should hit them in the beginning before they start forming really racist beliefs. i, however, think that, if we teach them in middle school, they'll forget by the time they get to high school or college.

I would think that the earlier the better. Middle school's OK. Elementary school would have been better -- for starters.

There needs to be constant repetition on this subject, if not racial, etc. acceptance, at every level.

[yangbahn50]

I think kids need to be how to accept people of other ethnicities and sexuality.

It's really sad that there are little elementary school kids saying racist jokes and comments to one another.


I remember kids in my elementary school who would mock to me ," Chinese, Japanese olo olo squash." while they twitched their eyes.

[Emperor_Mike]

As young as possible. I can't imagine not teaching my children about the evils of hate at an early age. You just have to look around to see that parents are simply not doing a good enough job with helping their kids grow up to be tolerant minded individuals.

[kasia]

my problem is this - if our resources are limited and we can only provide the program at ONE point in their education - would elementary school or middle school really be best? how can we guarantee or at least feel secure that they will remember what they have learned?

studies have shown that the D.A.R.E. program is highly unsuccessful because it is offered to the wrong age group. typically, kids aren't pressured into doing drugs until high school. or at least late middle school. offering the program to sixth graders, then, would only be effective if we can show that the information we are providing them will stay with them for the next few years. how can we be so confident, though, if the next few years it the actual time period that they will be confronted with peer pressure? i personally didn't remember, in high school, what i was taught during a 4-6 week program in 6th grade.

[Emperor_Mike]

my problem is this - if our resources are limited and we can only provide the program at ONE point in their education - would elementary school or middle school really be best? how can we guarantee or at least feel secure that they will remember what they have learned?

studies have shown that the D.A.R.E. program is highly unsuccessful because it is offered to the wrong age group. typically, kids aren't pressured into doing drugs until high school. or at least late middle school. offering the program to sixth graders, then, would only be effective if we can show that the information we are providing them will stay with them for the next few years. how can we be so confident, though, if the next few years it the actual time period that they will be confronted with peer pressure? i personally didn't remember, in high school, what i was taught during a 4-6 week program in 6th grade.

I think perhaps it should be a two stage affair. Teaching children about the how much damage hate can cause ought to begin as early as possible. Drugs, alcohol, and the rest can wait until middle school I'd imagine. It's a child's mentality and attitude towards others that must be shaped at a relatively early stage since what children learn then will likely remain with them for the rest of their lives. All in all, promoting good values such as treating all individuals with respect regardless of race, culture, or creed is of infinite importance for individuals of any age group.

[kitty]

The problem that I have is that it isn't a 'one-time' after school special lesson. It's ongoing and reinforcing. Same with D.A.R.E., I would argue that the reason it is unsuccessful because it expects kids to 'retain that information' through their high school experience.

Start young and reinforce the lesson, and that way you don't have to be as heavyhanded as D.A.R.E. all in one shot.

[kasia]

The problem that I have is that it isn't a 'one-time' after school special lesson. It's ongoing and reinforcing. Same with D.A.R.E., I would argue that the reason it is unsuccessful because it expects kids to 'retain that information' through their high school experience.

Start young and reinforce the lesson, and that way you don't have to be as heavyhanded as D.A.R.E. all in one shot.

hm, i'm not quite sure i understand what you are saying.

currently, the program that we offer is one-time and there is no similar program in the schools. whether the information taught is ongoing and reinforcing is debatable - nobody has any idea what until studies can be done. (and how can it be ongoing and debatable unless we expect the children to retain the information?)

so while it would be great if we can offer it at every grade level, it unfortunately cannot be done at this time (esp. since the program is taught to children by full-time attorneys who just volunteer their free time).

the only way we can reinforce our lesson, then, would be to present our program not to students, but rather to teachers, so that they can teach it on a more regular basis - and then we'd have to make a choice whether to present them to elementary, middle school, or high school teachers - and ultimately we would face the same dilemma.

one thing to understand about lessons on hate crimes is that schools won't be as likely to take the initiative to offer them as they would lessons on drugs or sex.


p.s. i really appreciate all this input.

[>:^|]

Given the constraints of time and resources, perhaps it would be helpful if the program were tied to real people's stories rather than simply discussion of the topic.

(By the way, I note that I have some reservations about having victims tell their stories--but I do think that often this type of presentation makes a huge impression on children.)

Then I would try to follow-up by trying to make contacts within the school communities, so that they might feel comfortable using you as a resources when issues arise. Perhaps provide the teachers and the administration with some articles, websites and other resources on teaching about hate, race and racism, etc. (I've got a bunch of links--if anybody wants them I'll post them.)

It's been my general experience that White teachers and school administrators are often remarkably insensitive to issues of race and racism, and that they often do not address racial issues until way too late.

My criticism of the "say no to drugs!" campaign was that it was merely trying to brainwash kids without offering any explanation. I think that kids didn't even know what the drug issue was about--as evidenced by a co-worker's child, who came home after the DARE program and flushed all the mother's prescription drugs. :tongue:

[Faithless]

my problem is this - if our resources are limited and we can only provide the program at ONE point in their education - would elementary school or middle school really be best? how can we guarantee or at least feel secure that they will remember what they have learned?

studies have shown that the D.A.R.E. program is highly unsuccessful because it is offered to the wrong age group. typically, kids aren't pressured into doing drugs until high school. or at least late middle school. offering the program to sixth graders, then, would only be effective if we can show that the information we are providing them will stay with them for the next few years. how can we be so confident, though, if the next few years it the actual time period that they will be confronted with peer pressure? i personally didn't remember, in high school, what i was taught during a 4-6 week program in 6th grade.

If the idea that resources are limited, then doing this at the outset of high school is a good idea.

There's a lot of peer pressure in high school. Kids are in full swing with their hormones and cliques.

High school is probably where they need these lessons the most -- the starting ages of real responsibility.

[ric 3]

Kasia

maybe its that age when certain mental developments begins. I doubt those early years children will question why they believe the thing s they believe in

Also maybe we need to question on why humans are predisposed to make catergory of visual world and place certain kinds of knowledge on those categories. MAybe questions in epistemology is needed as well

[Faithless]

Links:

Extent of hate crime laws PDF (http://www.ngltf.org/downloads/hatecrimeslawsmap.pdf)

http://www.hatecrime.net/

[Faithless]

The Southern Poverty Law Center has a program called "Teaching Tolerance". This is one of the non-profit causes I support from time-to-time.

http://www.tolerance.org/teach/

Teaching about hate crime can start with teaching "tolerance". Check out their forum (which unfortunately ends Jan. 2004).

http://forums.tolerance.org/guest/motet?enter+Teachers

[Faithless]

Also from the splc Teaching Tolerance web site -- establish school policies that promote equity and respect:

http://www.tolerance.org/rthas/section3_1_1.jsp

Adopt an equity, respect or anti-bias policy. Include consequences for hate crimes and other bias incidents, and publish the policy in the school handbook. Post a large-print copy in the main hallway and other common areas. Read and discuss it in an assembly at the beginning of each school year. Call parents' attention to the policy at the same time through newsletters, a school Web page or other means. Review it with newcomers throughout the year.

• Research all applicable hate-crime and civil rights laws. School system attorneys can advise you about the school's obligations to protect students under federal, state and local laws. Although many school-based bias incidents do not fall under legal restriction, it's important to know what the laws are.

• Reflect religious diversity in the school calendar. Take into account major religious holidays of all groups represented in the school and avoid scheduling testing or special events on such days. Make special arrangements for absences as necessary.

• Recognize and eliminate sexual harassment. In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that school districts can be held liable for damages for failing to intervene when a student subjects a classmate to severe and persistent sexual harassment.

[kasia]

Kasia

maybe its that age when certain mental developments begins. I doubt those early years children will question why they believe the thing s they believe in

Also maybe we need to question on why humans are predisposed to make catergory of visual world and place certain kinds of knowledge on those categories. MAybe questions in epistemology is needed as well

i'm still not convinced that we should teach them the second that they can understand anything. is there any proof that the younger they learn something, the more of an impact it is going to have? or is that just intuition?

[Faithless]

i'm still not convinced that we should teach them the second that they can understand anything. is there any proof that the younger they learn something, the more of an impact it is going to have? or is that just intuition?

Are you just referring to social rules or anything constructive?

[nonamerasian]

i'm still not convinced that we should teach them the second that they can understand anything. is there any proof that the younger they learn something, the more of an impact it is going to have? or is that just intuition?

I wouldn’t say I’m for teaching them early just because they can understand it early, but rather teach them early because such issues may affect them early.

Regardless of age, when they begin to notice such things, I believe it would be most influential.

I believe one of the reasons DARE was such a non-success in my school (besides crappy teaching methods) is because is started too late. Everyone already felt they knew everything the cops were “teaching” and therefore didn’t listen to what they had to say.

Try to “teach” an older teen about race issues and they probably won’t be as open as a younger child whose eyes have been just opened to the issues.

[kasia]

I wouldn’t say I’m for teaching them early just because they can understand it early, but rather teach them early because such issues may affect them early.

Regardless of age, when they begin to notice such things, I believe it would be most influential.

I believe one of the reasons DARE was such a non-success in my school (besides crappy teaching methods) is because is started too late. Everyone already felt they knew everything the cops were “teaching” and therefore didn’t listen to what they had to say.

Try to “teach” an older teen about race issues and they probably won’t be as open as a younger child whose eyes have been just opened to the issues.

but psychologists have been arguing for years that DARE is ineffective because it is taught at too early an age.

[nonamerasian]

but psychologists have been arguing for years that DARE is ineffective because it is taught at too early an age.

Perhaps others who went through the program may provide input, but my experience doesn’t match the claims of the psychologists.

At my school, there were students already smoking and/or selling at the time of the course.

I think usually because their older sibling was doing the same because each seemed to have a drugged out sibling in high school.

Even without siblings exposing me to drugs, I was already offered my first drugs before the course and knew of people who either did or sold at the district’s high school (I've never done drugs, but it has nothing to do with the program.).

So, in terms of catching a child before they are exposed to drugs, I don’t think it was too early.

Perhaps a bit late in that regard, and I don’t think the school would be considered high-risk, either, because it was a rather a quaint middle to upper-class suburban school.

I can’t imagine lower income schools in the ‘burbs or cities.

If taught later, I don’t think it would have had more successful.

It was taught during the last months of fifth grade at that school, but at a school I moved to later, I think it was taught in sixth or seventh.

I knew of sixth graders involved with drugs when I went there, too, although I'm not sure if I can compare the two schools.

[kasia]

Perhaps others who went through the program may provide input, but my experience doesn’t match the claims of the psychologists.

At my school, there were students already smoking and/or selling at the time of the course.

I think usually because their older sibling was doing the same because each seemed to have a drugged out sibling in high school.

Even without siblings exposing me to drugs, I was already offered my first drugs before the course and knew of people who either did or sold at the district’s high school (I've never done drugs, but it has nothing to do with the program.).

So, in terms of catching a child before they are exposed to drugs, I don’t think it was too early.

Perhaps a bit late in that regard, and I don’t think the school would be considered high-risk, either, because it was a rather a quaint middle to upper-class suburban school.

I can’t imagine lower income schools in the ‘burbs or cities.

If taught later, I don’t think it would have had more successful.

It was taught during the last months of fifth grade at that school, but at a school I moved to later, I think it was taught in sixth or seventh.

I knew of sixth graders involved with drugs when I went there, too, although I'm not sure if I can compare the two schools.

ditto. the program in our school district was taught to fifth-graders. none of us were into drugs or smoking. i guess we were sheltered?

[contra_diction]

i think it's easier to learn as a young child, but harder to retain. Maybe this is a bad analogy, but a second language, I've been told, is better to learn as a kid. But then, if you never use it, you'll lose it. With the D.A.R.E., kids never forgot the slogans and teachings as they moved into hs, it's just they chose not to listen. I remember a lot of people would make fun of "just say no". I think the reason for this, though, is because like kasia said, maybe they weren't exposed to it in middle school, so to children being taught this, it was intangible. Highschool would probably be a better time to start teaching because it is around them right then. Also, I guess it depends on the area where you grow up. In Alaska, I had to deal with drugs in elementary school. In Georgia, I didn't see it until highschool. In California, I've experienced racism since I was little, but in Wisconsin, I never experienced it until I was older. Maybe, local institutions should decide based on the social environment there. Ideally, I think it should be taught at a young age, and reinforced throughout.

[Faithless]

It's very important to teach the "social rules" of our society at an early age -- whether it be in the home or at school.

You start at the impressionable age and before kids "shut down".

School shouldn't just be about facts and figures, but how kids should interact well together.

[mr. x]

definetely the younger the better cuz if the school doesnt then the kid's parents will

[Faithless]

definetely the younger the better cuz if the school doesnt then the kid's parents will

Well, the parents should too, only if they got common sense.

But pre school and elementary school are key too, because that's where the kids will mainly interact.


I tell you, I would have loved the intervention in elementary school, because I was always fighting -- some times about my "asianness".