Between Two Frames: Exploring Responses to Hate Crime and Bullying through LGBTQ+ Youth Voices

Background and Purpose

"Hate crime" and "bullying" are distinct frames used to describe similar behaviors related to youth prejudicial harm, each with its own social, political, and legal implications. Bullying is typically viewed as a social or developmental issue, while hate crimes are treated as a criminal problem. Thus, how prejudicial harm is framed and therefore understood influences the societal and judicial response to the harm doers and to those experiencing harm. This qualitative study investigated LGBTQ+ young people’s perceptions of these frames, their utility in addressing harm, and the increasing reliance on criminal legal responses.

Methods

This qualitative study was a collaboration between university researchers and an LGBTQ+ youth-led gender and racial justice organization. It involved semi-structured interviews with 25 LGBTQ+ youth aged 14 to 18 in the U.S., conducted from February to May 2023. Eighty-five percent of participants identified as transgender, and 52% identified as youth of color. Participants resided in 14 different states, and 56% lived in the South.

Interviews aimed to understand young people’s definitions of "hate crime" and "bullying," their relevance to LGBTQ+ youth experiences, and perspectives on the criminal legal system's role in addressing these issues. The research team analyzed the data by employing the Rigorous and Accelerated Data Reduction (RADaR) Technique and critical discourse analysis to uncover themes related to power and oppression.

Results

Participants viewed "hate crime" and "bullying" as distinct yet struggled to differentiate them based on their lived experiences. This blurring underscores the complex lived reality versus the political and social distinctiveness of these terms. They noted that "hate crime" carries more social, emotional, and political weight, leading to its use to convey the seriousness of their experiences rather than a preference for criminal justice involvement. Jami (15, they/them, Black) explained, “I think, like, unfortunately, the only real avenue we have of pursuing justice is through this language of crime. Like, saying that something is hateful doesn't get the same kind of traction or attention of it being a hate crime.”

Nonetheless, there was a clear consensus against the appropriateness of criminal legal responses to such harm, pointing to a broader disillusionment with punitive measures. As Jami (15, they/them, white) questioned, “Are the institutions that are creating these notions of crime and enforcing them, do they have marginalized people's interests? and my general reflective answer is: no, they don't.” Instead, participants expressed a strong preference for more holistic and restorative approaches involving trusted adults, therapy, education, and creating more supportive environments for LGBTQ+ youth.

Conclusions and Implications

This study underscores the critical need to reevaluate how youth prejudicial harm is framed and addressed, particularly from the perspective of those most affected. Findings emphasize the complexity of defining "hate crime" and "bullying," the inadequacy of current legal responses, and the potential for more supportive, non-punitive interventions. These insights are crucial for developing effective strategies to combat youth prejudicial harm, ensuring they are rooted in the realities and preferences of LGBTQ+ youth.