Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjsv20
Download by: [Masarykova Univerzita v Brne] Date: 18 December 2015, At: 07:00
Journal of School Violence
ISSN: 1538-8220 (Print) 1538-8239 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsv20
Teachers’ Perspectives on Hitting Back in School:
Between Inexcusable Violence and Self-Defense
Amos Fleischmann
To cite this article: Amos Fleischmann (2015) Teachers’ Perspectives on Hitting Back in School:
Between Inexcusable Violence and Self-Defense, Journal of School Violence, 14:4, 363-381, DOI:
10.1080/15388220.2014.924417
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.924417
Accepted author version posted online: 30
May 2014.
Published online: 26 Sep 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 121
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Journal of School Violence, 14:363–381, 2015
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1538-8220 print/1538-8239 online
DOI: 10.1080/15388220.2014.924417
Teachers’ Perspectives on Hitting Back
in School: Between Inexcusable
Violence and Self-Defense
AMOS FLEISCHMANN
Department of Special Education, Achva Academic College, Shikim, Israel
Israeli schools expressly forbid a student to hit back after being
attacked. In semistructured interviews,71 Israeli educators were
asked for their views on the hitting-back tactic. The interviews compared
their attitude toward hitting back as teachers with their take
on the matter as parents. The results, analyzed using grounded
theory, show that most educators would not object if their children
hit back in self-defense when attacked but would discipline students
who hit back unless they can prove their claim of self-defense.
Interviewees are much less inclined to discipline retaliators who do
manage to prove self-defense but feel that investigations to verify
self-defense under school conditions are impractical. To deter bullies,
they say, teachers must declare their readiness to discipline
everyone involved; otherwise, bullies will falsely claim self-defense.
The discussion explores the implications of role theory on teachers’
attitudes.
KEYWORDS hitting back, self-defense, discipline, teacher
Fighting among students is very common in schools. Customary school
codes of conduct in Israel, where this study was performed, and in many
other countries proscribe violence and prescribe discipline for students who
use it, making no distinction between aggressors and responders to prior
attacks. Therefore, students who take the law into their hands and hit back
(i.e., respond violently to prior physical provocation) are deemed worthy of
discipline.
Received November 5, 2013, accepted May 12, 2014.
Address correspondence to Amos Fleischmann, PhD, Department of Special Education,
Achva Academic College, M.P. Shikmim 79800, Israel. E-mail: amosf@macam.ac.il
363
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at07:0018December2015
364 A. Fleischmann
Teachers’ attitudes toward hitting back are important in regulating
school violence. However, few studies have investigated them and those
that exist neither examine the rationale behind these positions nor ask
what prompts teachers to discipline those who hit back (Waasdorp, Pas,
O’Brennan, & Bradshaw, 2011). The current study investigated the factors
that shape teachers’ attitudes toward hitting back and motivate them to
encourage or penalize this behavior, if at all. To accomplish this, the study
also examines differences between the respondents’ attitude as teachers and
their feelings as parents.
HITTING BACK
Attitudes Toward Hitting Back
Hitting back transcends retribution because it includes elements of selfdefense,
which is considered to be legitimate (Nourse, 2001). Indeed,
children usually take a positive view toward hitting back but frown on
instigated violence (Astor, 1997; Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Yell, 2003).
Bradshaw, O’Brennan, and Sawyer (2008) found that most students whom
they examined favored hitting back. Even schoolchildren not involved in
actual violence also typically favor retaliation as a good way to deter aggression
and bullying (Frisén, Jonsson, & Persson, 2007). Bullying severely
compromises the victims’ social status (Nabuzoka, 2003); hitting back is
found to sustain social status among young people (Barter, Renold, &
Berridge, 2004; Phillips, 2003). The belief that hitting back deters a bully from
striking again may induce students and their parents (Davis, 2006; Frisén
et al., 2007) to favor this tactic.
Unlike parents and children, who may favor hitting back, most
teachers oppose it (Bradshaw, Sawyer, & O’Brennan, 2007). A specific
teacher’s attitude might be influenced by their stance on hitting
back as a parent. Previous studies, however, do not ask how teachers
incorporate their attitudes towards hitting back as parents into their
thinking.
Role Conflict: Teacher Versus Parent
According to role theory, people derive their expectations from the different
roles that they play (Biddle, 1986). These roles, however, occasionally
conflict. In the context of this study, some parents appear to favor hitting
back when the attacked children are their own (Berkowitz, 1993; Davis,
2006). Thus, parents who are also teachers could find themselves in a conflict
between their parental and their professional commitments. Katz (1984)
offered an explanation for this conflict between the roles of parent and
teacher. A parent is subjective, their expectations derived from concern for
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at07:0018December2015
Teachers’ Perspectives on Hitting Back 365
the welfare of their own child. These expectations may clash with the expectations
of a teacher who is responsible for the welfare of an entire class as
opposed to that of a specific student.
PUNISHING VIOLENCE
Teachers disclose their views on disciplinary infractions most conspicuously
by being willing to discipline students who cause them. The trenchant public
opposition to manifestations of violence in the United States and other
countries has given rise to a zero-tolerance policy toward violence, meaning
across-the-board discipline of anyone who uses physical violence in school.
Studies in the United States, however, show that disciplines actually administered
in schools are inconsistent. For example, members of some population
groups are disciplined more severely than members of others: children with
special needs more than others, boys more than girls, and African Americans
more than European Americans (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2013; Skiba, 2012).
Disciplining is also prone to personal bias (e.g., unpopular students are
disciplined more severely than popular ones; Nesdale & Pickering, 2006).
Sometimes, too, teachers excuse students who are involved in violence from
all discipline (Allen, 2010; Marshall, Varjas, Meyers, Graybill, & Skoczylas,
2009; Yoon, 2004).
Punishment in school is sometimes unfair and underweights moral considerations
such as the extent of the student’s guilt (Goodman, 2007; Skiba,
2012). Thus, hitting back, even when motivated by self-defense, might be
disciplined or not depending on a specific teacher’s attitude.
To the best of the author’s knowledge, research thus far has not investigated
the rationales behind educators’ attitudes toward hitting back but also
has not asked how teachers discipline retaliators. In the present study, teachers
are asked to explain their attitudes toward hitting back by a student in
their class generally and when it is their own child who hits back. It also
asks them to explain contradictions, if any, between their attitude toward
hitting back when the retaliator is their own child and what they think about
it when the retaliator is someone else’s child.
METHOD
Participants
Purposive sampling was used, as suggested by Patton (1990). To this end, I
used research assistants as informants (i.e., mediators who can locate appropriate
interviewees due to their proximity to the research venue). All of the
research assistants had more than 5 years of teaching experience. Before
beginning the research, I interviewed the research assistants and found them
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at07:0018December2015
366 A. Fleischmann
to be experienced in coping with violence in school. The research assistants
were able to track down additional participants who were also familiar with
violence in school and had more than 1 year of school teaching experience.
I personally advised the assistants in performing qualitative research; they
received thorough training in conducting semistructured interviews.
To increase diversity and, in turn, credibility (Patton, 1990), the research
assistants selected respondents who were men and women and who came
from different neighborhoods and schools. Since the assistants were well
integrated into the schools, they used personal acquaintance to identify
teachers who were experienced in coping with violence. The teachers participating
in the study were also parents. The study was performed in central
Israel (greater Tel Aviv). All respondents worked in Hebrew-speaking state
(public) schools that served a Jewish population.
Ten respondents were men and 36 were women. They worked in
kindergartens (12), elementary schools (31), junior-high schools (17), high
schools (9), and special-education settings (4). The youngest respondent was
28 years old and the oldest was 60 years old; the average age was 43.4 years
(SD = 8.9). Longevity of service ranged from 3 to 36 years; the average was
16.7 years (SD = 9.1). The respondents each had between 1 and 5 children,
2.5 on average (SD = 1.0).
The interview results revealed no differences in the respondents’ attitudes
toward hitting back on the basis of age, gender, longevity of service,
or type of school. Therefore, this article makes no reference to these variables.
Preschool and primary school teachers tended to apply more lenient
penalties for all infractions of discipline, as warranted by the students’ young
age. The author was not, however, able to discern qualitative differences
between them and postprimary teachers; consequently, the discussion that
follows makes no reference to such distinctions.
Procedures and Tools
After the respondents filled in a consent form, the interviewers asked them
about their demographic details. They were instructed to assemble the interview
around the following topics: parents’ and teachers’ perceptions of
violence in school, their attitude toward hitting back and their perception
of the meaning and importance of hitting back, and their thoughts about
disciplining those who hit back. At an advanced stage of the research, when
it became clear that the respondents were taking a tough line on hitting
back because they felt it difficult, under ordinary school conditions, to determine
“who started it,” a second round of interviews took place. Here the
interviewers were also asked to determine whether the respondents felt differently
about disciplining a retaliator if they could determine who instigated
the violence and who engaged in self-defense.
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at07:0018December2015
Teachers’ Perspectives on Hitting Back 367
DATA ANALYSIS
All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and explored using grounded
theory, as suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1990). In the first stage, the
interviews were analyzed using the open-coding method: subject headings
were created and assigned to phrases that exposed the subjects’ perceptions
of hitting back as parents and as teachers, their attitudes toward students
who hit back, their expectations of the outcomes of the quarrel, their feelings
about various treatment methods, and their attitudes toward discipline.
In the second stage, axial coding allowed identification by key categories
and comparison of separate perspectives to establish similarities and
dissimilarities among the respondents. Each respondent’s perspectives on
the implications of hitting back and administering discipline for hitting back
were compared. Differences were found between the respondents’ views
as teachers and their views as parents. Processes that produced costs in
the teachers’ opinion and produced benefits in parents’ opinion came into
clear view. Four categories emerged: (a) perceptions of cost−benefit and
moral values in hitting back, (b) attitudes toward hitting back as parents, (c)
attitudes toward hitting back as teachers, and (d) attitudes toward discipline.
In the third stage (selective coding), the different perceptions of the “values
of hitting back” emerged as the leading category. This category is linked
to the other categories and explains the difference in attitude between the
respondents as teachers and the same respondents as parents. This category
elicited a theory: the respondents’ stance towards hitting back is dictated by
considerations relating to their roles as teachers and parents, as suggested by
Katz (1984). One of the costs of fulfilling the role of teacher is the obligation
to determine who started the fight; teachers try to reduce this cost by taking
a categorical stance against hitting back (see the Results and Discussion
sections).
RIGOR
The content of the analysis was compared with the results of a quantitative
study and the main results seemed to be similar (Vanunu & Fleischmann,
2013). Since research validity might be improved by having more than one
researcher analyze the data (Patton, 2001), the author asked each research
assistant to analyze the interviews in which he or she had been involved.
As the principal researcher, I also analyzed each interview and compared my
analysis with that of the research assistants. I found a good fit in most cases;
occasional disagreements about specific analyses were settled by mutual discussion.
I then used the assistants’ insights to evaluate the meaning of each
interview and the meaning of each analysis in its three stages.
All the research assistants were familiar with goings-on in school due
to their role as teachers. As one who trains teachers in undergraduate and
graduate courses on coping with violence in school, I am also familiar with
the topic.
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at07:0018December2015
368 A. Fleischmann
Ethical Issues
I undertook the study only after obtaining authorization from my college’s
research committee to perform the study and approach classes to administer
questionnaires and conduct interviews. All interviewees were aware of the
purpose of the interview and gave their permission to publish the interview
contents. It was nevertheless decided not to reveal the participants’ names
and/or identifying particulars.
RESULTS
Attitudes Toward Hitting Back
The respondents saw pros and cons in hitting back. Most frowned on the
practice, especially when considerations related to the teachers’ perspective
were discussed.
THE MORAL DILEMMA OF VIOLENCE VERSUS SELF-DEFENSE
The respondents revealed the existence of a moral dilemma in their attitudes.
When asked what they thought about the use of violence in school,
all respondents vehemently objected to its use because they perceived it as
harmful to the class and even the community. One respondent explained,
“Violence, in my opinion, is one of the worst diseases of Israeli society
today.” Therefore, almost all respondents also opposed hitting back, perceiving
it as a violent affront to the public and the transgression of a rule that
is meant to protect the general welfare. The quotations that follow illustrate
this:
You shouldn’t respond to violence with violence, even in [self-]defense.
For me, a kid who hits back is guilty. Failing to prevent violence and
behaving violently are the same thing. He should have called for help,
and the moment he didn’t call for help and took the law into his hands,
for me they’re both morally equivalent.
Violence is a red line that mustn’t be crossed and if it happens, it has to
be dealt with at once. . . . To my mind, someone who hits back is even
a bigger failure: he had a situation to deal with and chose to deal with it
violently.
Most respondents, however, agreed that hitting back in self-defense
is less contemptible than proactive violence. One respondent explained,
“Morally, I think hitting back is less serious than aggressing in certain cases.
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at07:0018December2015
Teachers’ Perspectives on Hitting Back 369
That is, when a child is attacked and hits back, it’s a form of self-defense
that’s sometimes justified if not unavoidable.” Another teacher said, “I would
put hitting back in the gray area—unlike aggressing, which is definitely in
the black area. That’s the difference.”
The perspective of hitting back as justified self-defense was given special
emphasis when the question of hitting back by the teacher’s own
child was discussed. Some one third of the respondents even claimed
that they would urge their children to hit back when necessary for selfdefense.
Most respondents said that they would understand, although
would not recommend, hitting back when it serves their children as
a self-defense tactic. The following two examples illustrate this duality
in the respondents’ attitude. One teacher explained that hitting back
should not be done in school because, “We speak in no uncertain terms:
don’t hit [anyone] and don’t use violence.” When the same teacher was
asked about her attitude in regard to her own children, however, she
replied:
It’s hard to answer this question because now, when I think about my
own children, I don’t want anything bad to happen to them, and for sure
they shouldn’t be victimized by bullies. The message I give at home is
don’t hit back, violence is a bad thing, one should stay far from it and
also from violent children. Indirectly, however, and sometimes directly
too, I explain to my children that if someone hits them and they feel
they’re being attacked, they should defend themselves.
Another teacher expressed disgust about violence and opposed hitting
back in her class for this reason:
Violence shouldn’t be accepted in any way whatsoever. Children should
be trained to negotiate by means of language and not to use their hands
even when they’re attacked. . . . There should be zero tolerance toward
all uses of violence, period.
The same teacher, however, explained:
Today I tell my two daughters that if anyone hits them, they should hit
back. The era of “It’s not nice for me that you cause me pain” is over;
they have to defend themselves. It doesn’t excuse violence and it doesn’t
make things better. I don’t want to use the [rabbinical] expression “If
someone comes to kill you, kill him first.” But it’s clear to me that if a
boy or girl hits my daughter or picks on her in kindergarten or school,
she’ll hit back then and there. That way she’ll defend herself and in most
cases won’t experience violence again.
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at07:0018December2015
370 A. Fleischmann
UPHOLDING THE SCHOOL’S CODE OF CONDUCT
The respondents opposed hitting back on the grounds that everyone has
to obey the school rules. According to most respondents, the schools that
employ them forbid hitting back as a matter of official policy. Here are
several examples:
The sanctions and punishment [in our school] are the same for all students,
aggressor and retaliator alike. They’re clear to everyone up front
and it’s our duty to uphold them.
Both [aggressor and retaliator] are punished because both used their fists.
There’s no wiggle room; it’s the clearest rule there can be.
[Hitting back] is like applying jungle law in the schoolyard; it’s something
that has no place in a setting that has rules [against it].
The school code has to be upheld. Upholding the code lets us send a
clear message. Once the message is really clear and the punishment is
foreknown, there’ll be very few cases of violence.
The rules of our school say “no violence.” There’s a code of conduct
that the student council refreshes and advertises now and then, but it’s
something that’s very clear among us, something that our students know,
that there’s no violence in school and if there is, you’ll [be sent] home.
It’s Section 1 in our code.
Obviously, since teachers are also subject to the school rules, they must
oppose hitting back. Therefore, respondents cited the importance of upholding
the school code as a reason for objecting to hitting back. They did so,
however, mainly when asked to explain their attitude as teachers but not
when discussing their own children. Here is an example: “As a teacher, I’m
subject to the school code of conduct. I can’t display tolerance toward hitting
back.” As a parent, however, he was less interested in obeying the rules.
When asked why he urged his children to they hit back even if the school
forbade it, he explained, “It’s better for boys not to always do what they’re
told [obey the rules]. Their character has to be formed.”
A COST−BENEFIT DILEMMA EMERGED
The respondents were wont to explain their attitude toward hitting back in
cost−benefit terms (i.e., the retaliator harms the community and the teacher
but gains as an individual). In terms of the well-being of the teacher and
school community, most respondents claimed that hitting back intensifies
the cycle of violence and therefore poisons the school atmosphere, making
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at07:0018December2015
Teachers’ Perspectives on Hitting Back 371
it necessary to expend more energy to restore peace, hence harming the
teachers’ work. They used the following expressions to explain the damage
caused by hitting back:
● Instead of an incident being over and done with, it escalates into a
major brawl.
● Violence begets violence begets violence.
● Any violent response merely results in more violence.
● Hitting back widens the cycle of violence.
● When there’s hitting back, the system has to intervene more firmly.
● For the teacher, hitting back creates many problems—tension, frustration,
and waste of time, to name only a few.
Only three respondents believed that hitting back might benefit the
community by deterring bullies and, in turn, lowering the level of violence.
As for the retaliator’s well-being, most respondents suggested that
hitting back improves the retaliator’s social status and helps them emotionally.
Some respondents also suggested that a student who does not hit back
forfeits deterrence, becomes a victim, and may consequently suffer social
and emotional harm.
Several respondents explained the divergent processes that await those
who hit back and those who do not:
Victim [a child who doesn’t hit back] becomes a teacher’s pet.
These children [victims who don’t hit back] become punching bags, sad
to say, and then parents tell them to hit back—as an educational thing.
Hitting back improves the student’s status in class. It shows the other
children that he’s strong enough to stand up for himself and that starting
up with him is not worth the trouble. But if a child does not hit back—
for example, if he runs to the teacher for help—he loses status. Children
laugh at him and call him names like baby, crybaby, tattle-tale, and so
on, making further molestation more likely.
The child [who does not hit back] may become a victim. Children are
really bad; they might gang up on a certain kid and molest him both at
school and elsewhere. I get worried about things like that, so you have
to tell children to be tough [to hit back].
Sometimes I say that if you feel someone’s picking on you too
much in school and you feel, let’s say, that the adults aren’t doing
enough and so on, then yes, you can sometimes hit back and teach
that kid what’s called a lesson, so he’ll know not to pick on you
anymore.
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at07:0018December2015
372 A. Fleischmann
Punishing Hitting Back
The respondents believed it essential to discipline violent students to keep
violence from escalating and teach them the consequences of their behavior.
Many allowed no exception for mild violence:
I think [mild violence] should be punished as well; it has to be stopped
because little things that sometimes start as a game, a make-believe
beating, get bigger and bigger and escalate into more and more severe
beatings. It has to be stopped.
Since the respondents included hitting back in the category of violence,
almost all claimed that they would discipline students for this behavior as
well. Here are two illustrations:
If it develops again into a violent brawl in the same case, both of them
will have to sit [be disciplined], no matter who started it.
If both [aggressor and retaliator] exchange blows, hit each other, I don’t
call it semiviolence; everyone gets disciplined.
Very few respondents objected to disciplining a retaliating student on
grounds of an objection to the use of discipline, per se. Following, however,
are two examples:
I opposed hitting back but thought disputes should be settled peaceably,
by mediation and exchange of words. In their opinion, any form of discipline
would worsen the atmosphere at school and therefore harm the
collective.
I never punished [anyone]—that’s the truth. I believe the key to this
matter is finding out the reasons and getting to the root of things, and I
think the most helpful thing is to establish a personal relationship with the
child, a emotional relationship, a genuinely loving relationship, to show
the child that you really care about him as a person. In my opinion, these
are the only things that can help.
HITTING BACK—BY MY STUDENT, PUNISH! BY MY CHILD, COMMEND
As stated, almost all respondents said that they would punish hitting
back but most respondents also agreed, at least tacitly, that their children
should hit back (see above). Some were asked to explain the contradiction
between their roles as parent and as teacher. Examples of their responses
follow:
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at07:0018December2015
Teachers’ Perspectives on Hitting Back 373
● As a father, I’m concerned only for my son’s safety. As a teacher, I have
to look out for everyone.
● Professionally [as a teacher], I see the problems that violence may
cause. Personally [as a parent], I understand that if my children don’t
hit back, they’ll become other children’s victims.
● When it’s my kid, I’m not responsible for the other party. As a teacher,
I’m responsible for both parties.
● As a mother, it’s important for me to protect my daughter and spare her
from frustration. The teacher has to see the broad angle of what should
and shouldn’t be done at school and what things would be harmful to
all students.
● A parent is responsible for his child, while the teacher has a
commitment to all the students in her class.
● If I were his mother, okay [I would favor retaliation]—as a teacher,
no—I’d try to treat the boy who administers the beating and not the
one on the receiving end.
● As a mother, it’s important for me to protect my daughter and keep her
from suffering. A teacher has to see the broad angle of what can and
can’t done in school, and hitting back is on the “can’t” side.
● As a teacher, I certainly shouldn’t agree to hitting back. As a parent, I
have only one concern: that my child shouldn’t suffer.
In this manner, the respondents acknowledged the mismatch between
their attitude toward hitting back as teachers and the attitude they espouse
as parents.
KNOWING THAT THE STUDENT’S CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE IS TRUE
The respondents’ remarks indicate that they take self-defense claims into
consideration, especially in regard to their own children. Therefore, in some
interviews (mainly in Round 2, see Method section), an attempt was made to
determine why the respondents seem to disregard these considerations when
it comes to disciplining their students. Many respondents’ remarks make it
appear that their willingness to discipline a student who claims to have
merely “fought back” traces not to principled opposition to self-defense but
to distrust in the student’s claims and fear that the aggressor will exploit the
loophole to make the same claim. In their opinion, however, investigating
cases of violence to determine “who started it” would consume so much
energy as to make their work unendurable. The following examples shed
light on their rationale:
As I said, it’s not simple [to determine whether a student who professes
retaliation is telling the truth]. I can’t spend the whole day dealing with
who started it and who hit back. There’s no end to it. If it goes that
way, I think it’d eat up m whole day. When would I teach? And also, my
message, which we as educators have to make very clear, is: no violence
allowed!
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at07:0018December2015
374 A. Fleischmann
As to whether it’s possible to punish only the bully [the one who started
it], in our school there’s no such thing as a bully. What’s a bully, after
all? If we see one child provoking another and the other doesn’t hit back
physically or verbally, then obviously only the former will be suspended.
But it’s usually very hard to know [who’s the instigator] so you have to
punish both. Otherwise, each of them will say that the other started it.
You often don’t know who’s guilty, and even if you do know, the other
side had something to do with it, too. You can’t appoint a grand jury to
figure out who started it and who’s guilty. In our opinion, it’s better to
punish both of them. That sends a message to all students: We don’t put
up with violence, and anyone who’s involved in it, no matter how, will
be punished!
In the middle of class, I don’t know why two kids began to fight, why
one got up and hit the other. Both of them were removed from class;
they waited in the hallway. I gave them a one-day suspension; the next
day I talked with their parents and there was no more violence.
Thus, it seems, the retaliator is disciplined because, in the respondents’
opinion, disciplining both protagonists excuses them from having to perform
a time-consuming investigation to determine who started it.
The interviews, however, also show that the initial expressed attitude is
“exceptioned” when teachers really know that one side acted in self-defense.
In such a case, the latter is disciplined much less severely. The following
interview segments demonstrate this:
Interviewer: Why would you punish someone who retaliates even if
he or she says it’s in self-defense?
Teacher: We don’t have a judicial system to determine who started
it. Both students get suspended. It doesn’t matter who
started it and who got drawn in.
Interviewer: But what would you do if it’s clear that one of the parties
merely hit back?
Teacher: Let me continue. Obviously, both children are treated the
same only at the beginning of the inquiry. Afterwards,
if we manage to figure out who’s offender and who’s
the defender, of course they won’t be treated the same.
The offender should be punished more severely. The
defender is in a totally different situation
Interviewer: What would you do if a student claims that she tried to
defend herself and that’s why she hit back?
Teacher: I don’t have the strength to figure out every last thing;
the child who retaliates should be punished severely.
Interviewer: But what if you find out definitely that the student hit
back because she was defending herself?
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at07:0018December2015
Teachers’ Perspectives on Hitting Back 375
Teacher: In a case where a child is attacked and defends himself,
he won’t be punished. The matter will be dealt with by
reporting only to the parents and having a talk together
with the aggressive child.
Interviewer: How do you solve problems of violence among children
when you don’t know who started it?
Teacher: First I try to find out [who’s responsible for the quarrel]
by asking those involved. If I find contradictions, then I
bring in students who witnessed what happened, ones
whom I trust to tell it like it is. Some children know
how to manipulate and whitewash. We’ll never get to
the whole truth at all times, but we’ll do our best to be
objective.
Interviewer: And insofar as you don’t know [who started it and
who retaliated], will both students receive the same
punishment?
Teacher: If I can’t arrive at the whole truth, well, yes, then I’ll
punish the retaliator. If I manage to figure it out, then I
won’t.
DISCUSSION
Ostensibly, the respondents opposed any manifestation of violence in school.
The findings, however, show that this opposition is not absolute. If convinced
that the student indeed hit back, most respondents are willing to
soften the discipline or forego it altogether. Thus, the written rule in Israel,
which leaves no slack for violence in the education system (Wininger, 2011),
evidently clashes with common sense when the question of disciplining
self-defenders arises, making the rule too strict to be implemented.
Respondents’ Attitudes as Teachers
Most respondents believed that hitting back would amplify violence and
poison the school atmosphere. Researchers who look into the matter concur:
retaliation may exacerbate violence and lead to escalation (Davis,
2006). It creates recurrent, long-lasting confrontations between children, and,
accordingly, intensifies the violence and prolongs the clashes (Davis, 2006).
Revenge may cause violence to escalate into brawls during recess (Warren &
Anderson-Butcher, 2005). Violence has a “contagion” effect (Bandura, 1983;
Warren & Anderson-Butcher, 2005). If so, hitting back may heighten students’
exposure to violence and spread the predisposition to violence.
Most respondents also favored disciplining retaliators as well as aggressors.
Research shows that judicial systems, too, often apply cost−benefit
considerations in their decisions (Shavell, 2004), weighing how penalizing
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at07:0018December2015
376 A. Fleischmann
both sides in a dispute may enhance the general welfare. Thus, judicial
systems sometimes punish less-guilty as well as more-guilty parties, especially
when the former may be held responsible for the dispute due to failure
to take necessary precautions. When educators are “elevated to the bench,”
they also hold retaliators at least partly liable for disputes even if they act in
self-defense.
The Parent Versus Teacher Role Conflict
The findings show that despite their opposition to the use of violence,
most respondent acknowledged the right to self-defense in cases of violence
in school. Their attitudes in this regard, however, yield to their practical
needs as teachers. As teachers, the respondents stressed their opposition
to violence. Discussing their own children, however, many emphasized the
importance of self-defense, if only due to their practical awareness that a
child who fails to retaliate will be exposed to recurring molestation and, in
turn, loss of social status.
Role theory suggests that the role of individuals as parents may negate
their role as teachers (Katz, 1984). This may explain why several respondents
intended, as parents, to advise their own children to hit back but when asked
to reply as teachers preferred to discipline retaliators.
Campbell (1975) proposes that individuals’ attitudes are the products of
a compromise between two clashing types of pressures: pressure originating
in the individual’s biological nature, leading to a selfish approach, and
social pressure of the opposing kind, inducing a prosocial and, at times, an
altruistic approach. Imparting prosocial attitudes to the society’s constituent
individuals enhances the functioning of the society and, in turn, of the individual
who belongs to it. Therefore, society imparts to its members, by means
of various agents, prosociety attitudes that sometimes clash with their selfish
interests (Campbell, 1975; Simon, 1990). In our case, the respondents
in their role as parents focused on their children’s selfish personal interests.
For this reason, they encouraged their children to defend themselves
and hit back. As teachers, however, they are social agents whose role it is
to impart the values of their society to tomorrow’s adult members of the
society (Noddings, 1995). Consequently, teachers are exposed to the society’s
attitudes and accept them. Thus, the respondents adopted the view that
rules out violence among students even in self-defense and imparted these
attitudes to their students.
The Importance of Knowing “Who Started It”
At first glance, the respondents’ attitude as teachers toward violence in selfdefense
was exceedingly negative. A deeper investigation of their remarks,
however, shows that even as teachers the respondents acknowledged the
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at07:0018December2015
Teachers’ Perspectives on Hitting Back 377
right of a student who is not their child to defend themselves but under
restrictive terms. Under ordinary conditions of a quarrel between two pupils
in school, they said, it is hard to obtain the information needed to determine
the truth of one protagonist’s claim of self-defense; absent such
proof, the teachers said, they must discipline such a pupil. The teacher’s
decision on whether or not to discipline a student who uses violence in
self-defense depends, strange as it sounds, on the tactic that the aggressor
student adopts. The aggressor student can do one of two things: admit
that she started it or falsely accuse the other of having done so. By confessing,
the aggressor will incur discipline; accordingly, she has no interest
in confessing. Lying, in turn—persuading the teacher that she is not at
fault—might mitigate the penalty. The findings show that the respondents
in their role as teachers assume that the aggressor student who stands before
them will make the optimum decision for himself or herself and, accordingly,
plead self-defense and even accuse the retaliator of responsibility for
the quarrel. Therefore, even though our respondents affirmed the right to
self-defense, it was inevitable that they should hold the retaliator liable
along with the instigator and discipline both, because this alternative prevents
the instigator from falsely claiming that she or he was “just hitting
back.”
The Importance of Investing Resources in Determining “Who
Started It”
Theoretically, the respondents could conduct an intensive investigation
whenever a student pleads self-defense. This would allow them to be much
more lenient in disciplining the retaliator. The teachers, however, stated
that such investigations would consume precious time and energy, possibly
impairing their functioning in other matters. Accordingly, they believe
that the policy they have embraced (i.e., disciplining both sides, aggressor
and retaliator alike) is highly resource-efficient and, therefore, preferable to a
policy of intensive investigation that would single out only the aggressor for
discipline. Such a policy, however, may be amoral because it may disregard
the right to self-defense.
If so, some respondents admitted that despite their principled opposition
to violence, the retaliator should be disciplined less stringently, if at all,
when no expensive inquiry is needed, (i.e., when they know for sure who
started it and who hit back). Hence, the express policy of disciplining both
sides equally, typically espoused by most respondents when discussing an
anonymous student, is evidently meant to restrain the aggressor more than
to deter the retaliator.
A quantitative study by this author shows that teachers indeed discipline
self-defenders when the latter cannot prove their case and discipline those
who retaliate much less if at all, particularly when the retaliator acts solely
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at07:0018December2015
378 A. Fleischmann
in self-defense and can prove it (Vanunu & Fleischmann, 2013). Hence the
outcome is a compromise between the wish to discipline the aggressor and
consideration of the right to self-defense: rhetoric about disciplining everyone
but limiting the penalty to the aggressor and to the self-defender who
fails to prove his or her claim, allowing one who can prove his or her case
to be disciplined mildly if at all, notwithstanding the black-and-white rule.
Limitations and Conclusions
This study based itself on a small sample tailored to specific circumstances.
Thus, its findings should be tested under other circumstances as well (e.g.,
in other countries that prescribe discipline under a zero-tolerance policy).
Israel’s zero-tolerance policy on school violence requires disciplining an
aggressor and a self-defender alike. Consequently, neither protagonist has
an interest in informing the teacher about the altercation, leaving the teacher
with little ability to influence the level of violence in school. Furthermore, the
findings show that the respondents determined their stance on hitting back in
view of their roles. Violent retaliation by a student could touch off a dispute
between teachers and parents in school due to their different roles. If parents
become more involved in restraining violence on school grounds, they might
be able to align their positions with those of the teachers, thus alleviating
the dispute between them. Such cooperation might also give teachers with
better information about violence in their schools.
Better-informed teachers, in turn, may be able to lighten the penalties
that they administer to retaliators. Teachers might amass more information
about quarrels by recruiting students and their parents to solve problems and
co-opting them in the investigation of quarrels among students. This kind
of recruitment, as proposed in the past (Johnson & Johnson, 1996), would
lessen the need for discipline by the teacher and, in turn, ease the friction
that occurs among teachers, children, and parents when teachers discipline
children who defend themselves, allowing greater cooperation among them.
Improved cooperation among teachers, students, and parents may make
teachers better informed about goings-on in school, allowing teachers to
be less “unfair” in disciplining students who hit back, and so on.
The conclusions adduced from this study may have implications for similar
situations in the education system or in judicial and economic domains
in which supervisory players regulate conflicts between players who have
clashing interests by punishing them. Thus, arbitrators’ stances toward retaliators,
for example, may originate in the difficulty of determining “who started
it.” This, however, is a topic for further research.
COMPETING INTERESTS
There are no competing interests in relation to the current article.
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at07:0018December2015
Teachers’ Perspectives on Hitting Back 379
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author thanks the research team that took part in gathering and
analyzing the data.
FUNDING
This study was funded by MOFET Institute and Achva College.
REFERENCES
Allen, K. P. (2010). Classroom management, bullying, and teacher practices.
Professional Educator, 34, 1–14. Retrieved from www.theprofessionaleducator.
org/articles/combined%20spring_10.pdf
Astor, R. A. (2007). Children’s moral reasoning about family and peer violence:
The role of provocation and retribution. Child Development, 65, 1054–1067.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00802.x
Bandura, A. (1983). Psychological mechanisms of aggression. In R. G. Geen & E.
I. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression, theoretical and empirical reviews (Volume 1,
pp. 1–40). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Barter, C., Renold, E., & Berridge, D. (2004). Peer violence in children’s residential
care. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent development in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology,
12, 67–92. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435
Bowman-Perrott, L., Benz, M. L., Hsien-Yuan, H., Oi-man, K., Leigh, A. E., &
Dalun, Z. (2013). Patterns and predictors of disciplinary exclusion over time:
An analysis of the Seels National Data set. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 21, 83–96. doi:10.1177/1063426611407501
Bradshaw, C. P., O’Brennan, L. M., & Sawyer, A. L (2008). Examining variation in
attitudes toward aggressive retaliation and perceptions of safety among bullies,
victims, and bully/victims. Professional School Counseling, 12(1), 10–21.
Retrieved from www.schoolcounselor.org/content.asp?contentid=235
Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A. L., & O’Brennan, L. M. (2007). Bullying and peer victimization
at school: Perceptual differences between students and school staff.
School Psychology Review, 36, 361–382. doi:10.1007/s10464-009-9240-1
Campbell, D. T. (1975). On the conflicts between biological and social evolution
and between psychology and moral tradition. American Psychologist, 30,
1103–1126. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.30.12.1103
Davis, J. Q. (2006). The legacy of “If someone hits you, you better hit back.”
Reclaiming Children and Youth, 15(1), 8–10. Retrieved from www.cyc-net.org/
Journals/rcy/
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at07:0018December2015
380 A. Fleischmann
Frisén, A., Jonsson, A.-K., & Persson, C. (2007). Adolescents’ perception of bullying:
Who is the victim? Who is the bully? What can be done to stop bullying?
Adolescence, 42(168), 749–761. Retrieved from www.researchgate.net/journal/
0001-8449_Adolescence
Goodman, J. F. (2007). School discipline, buy-in and belief. Ethics and Education,
2, 3–23. doi:10.1080/17449640701286672
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Conflict resolution and peer mediation programs
in elementary and secondary schools: A review of the research. Review
of Educational Research, 66(4), 459–506. doi:10.3102/00346543066004459
Katz, L. G. (1984). Contemporary perspectives on the roles of mothers and
teachers (ERIC Document No. ED250099). In More talks with teachers (pp.
1–26). Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood
Education.
Marshall, M. K., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Graybill, E. C., & Skoczylas, R. B. (2009).
Teacher responses to bullying self-reports from the front line. Journal of School
Violence, 8, 136–158. doi:10.1080/15388220802074124
Nabuzoka, D. (2003). Teacher ratings and peer nominations of bullying and
other behaviour of children with and without learning difficulties. Educational
Psychology, 23, 307–321. doi:10.1080/0144341032000060147
Nesdale, D., & Pickering, K. (2006). Teachers’ reactions to children’s aggression.
Social Development, 15, 109–127. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2006.00332.x
Noddings, N. (1995). Philosophy of education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Nourse, V. F. (2001). Self-defense and subjectivity. University of Chicago Law Review,
68(4), 1235–1308. doi:10.2307/1600480
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Phillips, C. (2003). Who’s who in the pecking order? Aggression and ‘normal violence’
in the lives of girls and boys. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 710–728.
doi:10.1093/bjc/43.4.729
Shavell, S. (2004). Foundations of economic analysis of law. Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press.
Simon, A. (1990). A mechanism for social selection and successful altruism. Science,
250(4988), 1665–1668. doi:10.1126/science.2270480
Skiba, R. (2012). Reaching a critical juncture for our kids: The need to reassess
school-justice practices. In Keeping kids in school and out of court: A collection
of reports to inform the National Leadership Summit on School–Justice
Partnership. Albany, NY: New York State Permanent Judicial Commission
on Justice for Children. Retrieved from school-justicesummit.org/pdfs/journal-
web_paper_17.pdf
Smetana, J. G., Campione-Barr, N., & Yell, N. (2003). Children’s moral and affective
judgments regarding provocation and retaliation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 4,
209–236. doi:10.1353/mpq.2003.001
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vanunu, E., & Fleischmann, A. (2013, July). Punishment and self-defense in schools.
Sixth International Conference on Teacher Training, Changing Reality Through
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at07:0018December2015
Teachers’ Perspectives on Hitting Back 381
Education, Proceedings of the Sixth Conference. Retrieved from www2.kenes.
com/davidyellin_he/program/Documents/conference%20abstracts.pdf
Waasdorp, T. E., Pas, E. T., O’Brennan, L. M., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2011). A
multilevel perspective on the climate of bullying: Discrepancies among students,
school staff, and parents. Journal of School Violence, 10, 115–132.
doi:10.1080/15388220.2010.539164
Warren, K., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2005). He did it first! A path model of
interactions in the aggressive behaviors of elementary school boys during
three successive recess periods. Journal of School Violence, 4, 29–46.
doi:10.1300/J202v04n01_03
Wininger, A. (2011). How the Ministry of Education copes with violent phenomena
in schools, Report to the Knesset (Israeli parliament) Education, Culture and
Sport Committee. Jerusalem, Israel: Knesset Research and Information Center.
Retrieved from www.knesset.gov.il/mmm/data/pdf/m02963.pdf
Yoon, J. S. (2004). Predicting teacher interventions in bullying situations. Educational
and Treatment of Children, 27, 37–45. doi:10.1037/1522-3736.6.1.621a
Downloadedby[MasarykovaUniverzitavBrne]at07:0018December2015