What's in a Shame? Rethinking School Safety in the Face of Disruptive Threats

ABSTRACT

Background

Following school shootings, threats of violence often surge, straining law enforcement and disrupting school operations. Some agencies respond with “shaming” tactics, such as publicizing arrests, but research shows these methods can worsen outcomes by increasing fear and alienation among students.

Contributions to Practice

This commentary advocates for moving away from punitive measures like shaming and instead recommends restorative practices focused on relationship‐building and accountability. These strategies foster a positive school climate, improve trust, and engage students in creating safer environments.

Implications for School Health Policy, Practice, and Equity

We emphasize the limitations of shaming and the need for developmentally appropriate juvenile justice responses. A comprehensive approach to school safety should include social–emotional learning, early threat detection, and environmental design. Policies should prioritize positive youth development to ensure equitable practices, particularly for marginalized students affected by punitive measures.

Conclusions

A holistic, evidence‐based approach that incorporates restorative practices and proactive safety strategies is more effective in fostering a supportive, safe school environment. Moving away from shaming and punishment will enhance student well‐being, reduce fear, and promote a more inclusive school climate for all students.

Following a school shooting, there is nearly always a sharp uptick in the frequency of highly disruptive hoax school violence threats, threats that occur to cause disruption without intent to carry out violence. We define a highly disruptive threat as any statement or indication of a safety‐related concern that causes significant interference with the normal functioning of the school environment, prompting emergency responses, evacuations, or closures, and substantially altering or impeding routine school activities due to fear of bodily or psychological harm to school community members [1, 2]. This trend has been demonstrated widely, including in the immediate aftermath of many school‐based tragedies such as Sandy Hook Elementary School, Oxford High School, Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, and beyond [2, 3]. After events such as these, there was as much as an 800% increase in media reports of social media threats targeting schools [3]. These threats require the use of limited time, financial capital, and resources for investigation and prosecution. This impedes the criminal justice system and school learning environments, decreases valuable instructional time, and compromises overall feelings of safety for students, staff, parents, and others within school communities.

To address potential threats effectively, many schools have implemented anonymous reporting systems, which allow individuals to report safety concerns or potential threats confidentially. When implemented correctly, these systems can enhance school safety and support early intervention efforts [4]. However, the successful implementation of anonymous reporting systems requires careful planning, rigorous adherence to protocols, and ongoing evaluation. Encouraging the responsible use of anonymous reporting systems is a difficult task that requires a multi‐pronged approach, where all members of the school community play a role, including students, educators, law enforcement, caregivers, community members, and mental health professionals.

The availability of tip lines offers a safe and accessible way to report concerns, but also creates opportunities for misuse, such as false alarms or targeting peers, which can create unnecessary disruptions for law enforcement and school officials, while also undermining the legitimacy and effectiveness of the system [4]. Law enforcement officers have a herculean task of responding to these threats and preventing future incidents with scarce resources. As an attempt to deter false threats, some law enforcement officers have sought to use shaming as a tool to deter others from abusing anonymous reporting systems [5]. To highlight the extreme disruption caused by these threats, some law enforcement agencies have prioritized a strong and public means of making arrests to shame students for their behavior. These techniques include posting mugshot videos of youth handcuffed and walking to cells and making arrests in the school.

With any violence prevention strategy, it is crucial to consider both positive and negative unintended consequences [6], particularly in terms of how these strategies affect students across different cultures [7], socioeconomic backgrounds [8], and the growing influence of social media on school safety [9]. As researchers in the field of school safety, we have found that there are more effective ways to deter violence, and shaming can be counterproductive to those efforts; thus, we recommend alternative approaches to deter violence and increase school safety.

1. Potential Consequences of Shaming as a Prevention Strategy

1.1. Shaming May Not Work to Deter Others

Research demonstrates that shaming, or intentionally acting in a way to disgrace, humiliate, publicly expose, or criticize another individual, is correlated with violence, bullying, guilt, addiction, and depression [10, 11, 12]. A meta‐analysis of shame and depression showed a strong association between shame and depressive symptoms [13]. Public shaming draws increased attention to an issue, causes irregular operations (i.e., school closures, presence of law enforcement, etc.) and can induce feelings of panic. However, research also shows that perpetrators of bomb threats “want to disrupt normal operation and threats of violence that generate panic” [2]. Therefore, shaming is an ineffective deterrence method because it feeds into what the perpetrator intends to accomplish [10].

1.2. Shaming May Decrease Feelings of Positive School Climate

Using shame as a deterrence strategy may be harmful to both the individual and collective psyches, and the fear associated with watching public shaming may be counterproductive. Research has shown that individuals who experience shaming may experience alienation, which could exacerbate negative outcomes [12, 14]. Findings also suggest that even those who witness acts of public shaming and do not directly experience the event experience negative emotions and outcomes as observers [11]. According to a 2013 study, juveniles exposed to fear‐inducing programs, such as “Scared Straight,” are at increased odds of committing future offenses [15]. Shaming could also result in a reduction of prosocial behavior and decreased respect, which may reduce the overall positive climate of a school [14]. A poor school climate can make community members feel less connected and less likely to act if they notice a potential threat [16].

1.3. Shaming May Deter Prevention

An additional unintended consequence is the potential for shaming to instill fear in legitimate acts of reporting and may discourage students from participating in the reporting process, as they may fear being unjustly shamed [11]. There is strong scientific evidence that anonymous reporting systems work to increase school safety and prevent violent occurrences [4]. Statewide systems in Michigan, Colorado, Nevada, and others report successes with students submitting a range of concerns beyond school shootings to these systems, ranging from self‐harm to dating violence, substance use, and bullying. However, if a student perceives a chance of legal trouble in reporting knowledge of a planned attack, there is a risk of them not reporting. By making the disciplinary proceedings of bad actors public, students trying to do the right thing may be further deterred from making a report.

While public shaming can be a counterproductive strategy to deter threats of violence, there are multiple alternative approaches to increase school safety. First, we recommend the use of restorative practices, or school‐based strategies focused on relationship building that are intended to repair harm, restore trust, and address conflict. Restorative practices are not an abdication of responsibility; rather, they serve as a means of working with conflict and focus on accountability for and repairing harm that has been done [17]. When utilized as one of multiple approaches in a comprehensive school safety model, restorative practices have been found to decrease suspensions, campus violence, and substance abuse [18].

When proactive measures fail and threats of harm still occur, systems of juvenile justice must adopt a developmentally appropriate approach. This approach is characterized by, when possible, accountability without criminalization, confinement only if necessary for public safety, a commitment to fairness, mindfulness of disparate treatment, and family engagement. While adolescents have and will continue to make mistakes, measures must be taken to reduce recidivism and not impair an individual's access to education and to become a productive member of society.

Shaming may be harmful to the overall goals of school safety in that it may not work to deter others, may decrease overall feelings of a positive school climate, and may deter prevention [10, 11, 12, 13, 14]. This approach may inadvertently contribute to a negative school environment that detracts from positive efforts to promote school safety [12, 14]. In addition, shaming practices may have varying effects on students depending on their cultural backgrounds and socioeconomic status [19]. For example, students from marginalized communities [20] may be disproportionately affected by public shaming, as they may already face systemic biases that make them more vulnerable to negative treatment by authorities or peers [21]. Furthermore, in the era of social media, the effects of shaming are amplified, as images or videos of shamed individuals can be widely shared, potentially leading to long‐term social consequences for the students involved.

2. What Can Be Done? A Call to Action

In light of these concerns, alternative approaches that emphasize education, empathy, and restorative practices have shown more promise in promoting both safety and a positive school climate [22, 23]. Training students, staff, and law enforcement on the responsible use of anonymous reporting systems can help reduce false threats, while school‐based programs that encourage open communication, conflict resolution, and peer support networks can address safety concerns without punitive measures. Restorative justice practices, programs to help students recognize potential harm to self or others, and mental health awareness campaigns have proven successful in reducing school violence and fostering accountability [17, 18]. Educators should be trained to investigate false reports thoroughly and use them as learning opportunities to foster a culture of respect and empathy. School counselors are crucial in supporting mental health during safety interventions, especially for those vulnerable to shaming, by offering counseling, monitoring well‐being, and connecting students to resources. Prioritizing both safety and mental health helps schools create a supportive environment that promotes student well‐being while addressing safety concerns.

Finally, it is essential to recognize that integrating multiple strategies, such as anonymous reporting systems (ARS), Multi‐Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS), and improved education for bystander reporting, can create a more comprehensive and effective approach to school safety. Research on the effectiveness of ARS highlights their potential to yield significant positive outcomes, such as mental health interventions and the prevention of violence and suicide [4]. Anonymous reporting systems, when used properly, save lives [4]. An analysis of 4 years of data for a state in the Southeastern United States showed ARS efficacy in yieldingover 1000 mental health interventions, preventing 109 acts of suicide, preventing 38 acts of school violence, and averting 6 confirmed school attacks [4]. When used in conjunction with other strategies, these efforts contribute to a more holistic and proactive approach to student safety, fostering a supportive and responsive school environment. The integration of ARS, MTSS, and education on bystander intervention helps create a system that addresses immediate threats while also supporting long‐term student well‐being and improving school climate [4]. Moving toward a comprehensive approach to school safety is necessary to focus on positive youth development, undergirded by equitable strategies and responses throughout [22]. This ensures all students can meet their full potential while also holding perpetrators accountable for the harm that has been done.

A comprehensive approach involves a focus on the social environment (e.g., instilling belonging, social–emotional learning), the attentive environment (e.g., early detection systems, threat assessment), and the physical environment (e.g., door locks, crime prevention through environmental design) to address both the physical and psychological safety of students [22]. However, schools may face several challenges when implementing a comprehensive approach. First, for restorative practices to be effective, schools must foster strong relationships with law enforcement agencies. Without these relationships, schools may be unable to collaborate with law enforcement prior to instances of shaming or false reporting. Schools and law enforcement must proactively identify protocols for responding to false threats, which can be outlined through best practices for coordination [24]. Second, building trust and a positive climate within schools takes time and effort. Schools must commit to creating these relationships, establishing clear norms, and consistently following through with restorative practices. While this effort may require significant dedication, the benefits extend beyond reducing false reports to fostering a school climate that supports student well‐being and safety [7].

To measure the success of these approaches, schools can track key indicators such as the number of false or unsubstantiated reports. Additionally, climate measures can be used to evaluate the broader impact of these practices on school culture, including changes in student perceptions of safety and belonging [25]. By comparing rates of false reports and climate indicators before and after implementing these practices, schools can assess the effectiveness of their efforts and adjust strategies as needed to ensure continuous improvement. The challenges of school threats are complex, but not insurmountable. By implementing a comprehensive, evidence‐based strategy focused on positive youth development, we can prevent future threats of violence and redirect perpetrators toward a better path.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.