校园性别暴力实证研究与政策建议.pdf

3出品：同语日期：2017 年 12 月报告撰写：艾琳、崔文笛、Dina、刘明珂、ming （按字母顺序排列）校对：康乃心设计：简娜版次：2017 年 12 月第一版版权声明本报告版权为同语所有，转载和引用请注明出处。关于同语同语是一个民间非营利组织，成立于 2005 年 1 月。同语关注中国在性倾向或性别身份上遭受压迫的群体，旨在通过社群培力、援助服务、公众教育和政策倡导，推动公众对多元性别的认知，消除歧视和暴力，争取平等权益。同语的核心价值：平等，多元，开放。邮箱：tongyugmail网站：tongyulala校园性别暴力5 6校园性别暴力实证研究与政策建议校园性别暴力7 82016 年秋季学期，我们接到一例求助。求助者是一名大一在读的拉拉，因性倾向被同学举报，而遭到校方的调查，并可能会将她开除。在忐忑中过了一个学期之后，虽然学校还没有宣布对她的决定，但因她自己无法忍受老师同学的孤立、校园环境的不友善、父母不断的催找男朋友，而主动退学了。她的身边，没有一个人站出来帮她。同语从 2005 年成立之初就关注校园和青年，通过与高校老师和学生社团合作，在课堂上向同学们介绍“紫色校园”1活动，分享男同受欺凌的纪录片你如此坚强2，呼吁同学们正确认识性少数群体。每年“紫色纪念日”3期间，各大高校都会掀起一股紫色浪潮，动员大家关注校园霸凌，并为消除校园欺凌和暴力做出自己的行动。同语一直在从教育和预防的角度做着一些工作，也一直有这么多组织在发声。但 2016 年秋季学期的求助，让我们了解到凌轩的事情过了那么多年，依然在校园里重演着，几乎没有改变。2016 年 6 月，同语出品性与性别少数学生校园环境调查报告，报告显示，40.64% 的学生报告其所在校园内发生过针对性与性别少数学生的校园欺凌，其中最严重的是身体暴力（1.1%）和劝退或开除（0.98%）。消除针对性与性别少数学生的校园欺凌和暴力，刻不容缓！然而，无论是教育部发布的校园暴力调查问卷中，还是在校园性别暴力专家圆桌会上，都很少见到性别视角，更不用说多元性别视角。因此，基于目前情况，同语做了此报告，在性别暴力的框架下探讨校园欺凌和暴力，同时也包含了针对性与性别少数学生的欺凌和暴力，并结合现状，提出了相关的法律政策建议。这份报告是同语关注校园欺凌和暴力的又一步，是政策倡导工作的第一步，我们期待通过一点一点的工作，和一点一点的发声可以走的更远。更希望这份报告能被更多人看到，引起更多人关注，共同推动消除校园欺凌和暴力相关法律政策的出台！序项目官员2017 年 12 月1 紫色校园：由联合国教科文组织曼谷办公室，联合国开发计划署（UNDP）以及及亚洲同志项目发起，共同鼓励家长、同伴和教师来支持 # 紫色校园行动，消除校园霸凌，共同为亚太区的性和性别少数青少年学生营造安全的空间。2 你如此坚强：纪录片的主人公是一位来自福建的年轻人章凌轩。作为一位公开的同性恋者，章在高中期间经历了生理和心里上的骚扰和打击。在那之后，章和他的母亲希望通过宣传他的经历提高人们对同性恋的认知。3 紫色纪念日：自 2010 年以来，在每年 10 月份的第三个星期四，为了纪念因遭受校园欺凌而选择自杀的方式结束自己生命的性与性别少数学生，人们穿上紫色衣服，站出来反对针对同性恋、双性恋、和跨性别儿童、青少年和青年人群的欺凌行为，提高人们对于多元性别和性倾向的儿童、青少年和青年人的接纳度。校园性别暴力9 10摘要为响应国家消除校园暴力的号召，推动更加完善的、更具有包容性的消除校园暴力政策的制定，为全部学生建设更友善的校园环境，同语于2016 年秋启动校园性别暴力研究项目，采用文献法、数据统计和案例分析的方法对中国校园性别暴力的总体概况和具体机制进行调查和分析，说明了校园性别暴力的严重性和独特性，同时呈现了作为更加边缘的学生群体性与性别少数学生遭受校园性别暴力的情况。在此基础上，我们进一步采用文本分析和访谈相结合的方法，对美国、英国和台湾的相关法律政策进行梳理和分析，并结合中国已有的法律政策框架，为校园性别暴力的防治提出了相关法律政策建议，以期在之后出台的相关法律政策中能够包含性别视角与多元性别视角，能够将性与性别少数学生也纳入保护范围。本报告内容来自同语校园性别暴力研究项目所产出的五份研究成果：第一，校园性别暴力网络调查报告，通过对 1018 份网络问卷的分析，概述校园性别暴力的大致情况；第二，校园性别暴力媒体案例研究报告，通过对 2012 年至 2017 年间发生的 19 例媒体报道校园性别暴力案件的分析，总结了校园性别暴力的形式与手段、特点、诱因、后果与处理；第三，校园SOGIE 暴力媒体案例分析报告，通过对 32 个媒体案例的分析，重点讨论了校园 SOGIE 暴力的暴力类型、后果、诱因和风险因素；第四，校园 SOGIE暴力访谈案例分析报告，通过对九位校园 SOGIE 暴力的亲历者深入访谈，进一步探讨了校园 SOGIE 暴力诱因，以及不同主体的应对方式所构成的校园 SOGIE 暴力恶性循环；第五，校园性别暴力域外法律政策研究，对英美及台湾地区的反校园欺凌法律政策进行了梳理与分析。总体而言，校园性别欺凌发生比例跟之前研究中的校园欺凌发生比例接近，都是严重而普遍的校园暴力现象。24.6% 的调查对象则会经常性地遭受某种形式的校园性别暴力，即校园性别欺凌。另外，在我们 1018 名调查对象中，78.2% 的人表示（曾）在中学校园中遭遇过性别暴力，也就是说，中学校园中存在着更大数量的、偶尔的、一次性的校园暴力事件。这种爆发式的校园暴力事件并不是之前校园欺凌研究的讨论对象，但是它对于校园安全与学生身心健康同样有着不可忽视的影响。而且它并不具有持续性，因此对预防、干预和应对都提出了更大的挑战和更高的要求。校园性别暴力的复杂性是本研究的另一主要发现，复杂性体现在，第一，校园性别暴力的发生具有阶段性。我们发现，校园性别暴力多发于学生的初中阶段，高中阶段则相对较少，这为相关的预防与干预政策的针对性提出了要求。 第二，校园性别暴力的发生场所相对集中于教室、走廊、上下学途中、操场等等，这与同语前期的校园环境调查结果基本吻合，因此校园整体安全环境的构建也应该有空间上的具体规划和主次分配。第三，校园性别暴力的暴力形式是多样的，包括身体暴力、语言暴力、心理暴力、性暴力、制度暴力以及比较新近出现的网络暴力。并且，这些暴力的发生往往并不孤立，而是伴随发生的。受暴者在暴力事件中往往受到的是多重的伤害和欺凌。而且，不同形式的校园性别暴力主要的发生阶段也不尽相同。这些都反映出校园性别暴力在表现形式方面的复杂性。这为相关人员辨别、确定校园性别暴力本身提出了较高的要求，而对这一方面意识与技能的培训就变得特别重要。第四，校园性别暴力的类别具有多样性，男女学生遭受的校园性别暴力形式或特征有差异；师生之间的不平等权力关系使师源性性别暴力成为突出问题；性与性别少数学生是校园性别暴力中的易受害群体。这涉及性别权力关系、师生权力关系以及以异性恋霸权为核心的性权力关系。这便要求有效的校园欺凌政策应当具有权力视角和权力意识。 从社会生态系统理论的角度来看，校园性别暴力在两个层面上构成了一个社会生态系统，其一，嵌入其中的个体行为受到不同层面环境因素的影响，其二，不同相关主体，以及他们的不同情境角色与行为决策构成了“我希望社会能够提供足够的、免费的心理健康咨询，也希望国家有政策禁止校园欺凌，让弱势群体受到平等对待。如果媒体可以宣传和倡导，反对基于倾向和性别身份的校园欺凌，就更好了。”“现在，猫猫希望更多的学校开设性别、同志议题相关的公选课，国家能够建立相关法规政策来保护青少年的伙伴们，让他们不再像自己一样受人欺负，让更多人了解同志。”校园性别暴力11 12一个完整的校园性别暴力事件。我们发现，沉默的受害者、“息事宁人”的被求助者、熟视无睹的旁观者以及缺乏约束与惩戒的施暴者构成了性别暴力的校园生态系统，也形成了某种校园暴力亚文化。如何突破这种亚文化、找到校园暴力生态系统的切入点对校园欺凌政策的实操性提出了要求，也为政策试点、在实践中不断调整的必要性提供了支持理据。正因为不同行为主体都深深卷入校园性别暴力的漩涡之中，所以校园性别暴力的后果是“覆巢之下，安有完卵”。首先，受暴学生的生理健康、心理健康、学业与人际关系受到严重的危害。其次，旁观学生会产生更高比例的负面情绪和风险行为。最后，施暴者的抑郁和自杀意念水平都显著高于未参与欺凌的学生。因此，针对施暴者进行严厉惩戒的一刀切政策是武断和不合理的，没有支持性成分的暴力事件举报机制可能收效甚微。 不论是较为切近的相关政策的制定还是更加长远的教育培训的规划，其根本的理论依据应当是对校园性别暴力诱因的厘清和对校园性别暴力风险因素的梳理。社会结构与制度中的性别规范和权力关系与校园性别暴力的频发有着不可分割的关系，其背后的文化暴力内涵包括严格的二元性别及性别气质建构、顺性别 / 异性恋规范、不平等的社会性别权力关系、社会暴力文化的流行等。学校作为社会中重要的组织单元，承担着引导学生“社会化”的角色，在其日常运作中往往又在复制并强化社会结构与制度中的性别规范和权力关系。这些文化因素具体化操作化为学校体制本身，大多数学校缺乏基本的预防、应对和处理校园性别暴力的系统机制；缺乏基本的性教育；歧视和边缘化性与性别少数学生，这些都成为了校园性别暴力萌芽和生长的温床。在日常的校园生活中，个人层面、关系层面、学校层面和社会层面的多重因素互相作用，使校园性别暴力成为了现实。因此相关的法律和政策需要最终指向校园性别暴力的文化暴力和体制暴力，才能治本有力；需要分解并针对不同层面的风险因素，才能治标有效。从 2016 年 4 月到 2017 年 12 月，我国政府先后出台了三项有关校园欺凌的政策文件，有通知、有指导意见、也有治理方案。对校园欺凌治理提出了明确的要求，在一定程度上完善了校园欺凌行为的定义，提出了预防的具体措施，规范了处置程序，理清了各部门的职责分工。但仍然存在可以完善之处，以下是我们的政策建议。在完善制度方面：null 制定更高层级的反校园欺凌法律政策null 更高层级的反校园欺凌法律政策应当包括一系列关键元素null 反校园欺凌政策应当具有性别视角 null 反校园欺凌政策应当自实践中来到实践中去在加强预防方面：null 预防而非惩罚导向，营造积极友善的校园环境null 开展对学生的教育null 开展对教职员工的培训在及时处理方面：null 学校层级应在国家政策指导下建立制度化的校园欺凌行为处理程序 null 恢复性的（restorative）处理方式在多方配合方面 :null 支持相关民间组织在反校园欺凌上的参与在主管部门提供政策指导和资源支持方面：null 主管部门应出台更为详细的政策指导并提供技术支持null 主管部门应提供足够的资金支持null 主管部门应注意对特别地区加大支持力度校园性别暴力13 14In response to the governments call to action to eliminate school-related gender-based violence (SRGBV), promoting the formulation of better developed and more inclusive anti-school violence policies and building a friendlier school environment for all students, Common Language launched a research project on SRGBV in the fall of 2016. Through literature review, statistics analysis and case study, this project investigates the general situations and specific mechanisms of SRGBV in China, explains the alarming severity and unique characteristics of SRGBV, and meanwhile demonstrates the situation of a group of marginalized students sexual and/or gender minority students with regard to SRGBV. On this basis, this research takes further steps to review and analyze relevant legislations and policies of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Taiwan through a combined methodology encompassing text analysis and interview. SummaryTaking into account the incumbent frameworks of legislation and policy in China, this research further proposes legislation and policy recommendations for the prevention and intervention of SRGBV, in the hope that future legislations and policies adopt a gendered perspective and a SOGIESC-inclusive perspective, and include sexual and/or gender minority students under protected classes.The content of this report draws upon the findings of five studies conducted as part of Common Languages research project on SRGBV. The first of the five studies is an online survey on SRGBV, which outlines the general situation of SRGBV based on an analysis of 1018 online questionnaire responses. The second is the media monitoring of SRGBV, which examines 19 media reports on SRGBV, and summarizes the forms, means, characteristics, causes, and consequences of, as well as the responses to SRGBV incidents. The third is a case study of SOGIESC based school violence based on media reports, which discusses the types, consequences, triggers, and risk factors of SOGIESC based school violence through the analysis of 32 cases. Drawing upon the findings of in-depth interviews with nine interviewees who experienced SOGIESC based school violence, the fourth study discusses the causes of SOGIESC based school violence and the vicious cycle of SOGIESC based school violence created by the responses of different subjects. The fifth study focusses on overseas legislation and policies concerning SRGBV, reviews, and analyzes anti-bullying legislations and policies in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Taiwan.In general, gender based school bullying occurs as frequently as school bullying (as demonstrated in previous research), indicating the severity and prevalence of both as school violence phenomena. 24.6% of the respondents reported that they suffer from SRGBV, or gender based school bullying, on a regular basis. In addition, 78.2% of the 1018 survey respondents reported that they have suffered gender-based violence in middle school. In other words, occasional and one-time school violence incidents are more prevalent in middle school. These kind of explosive incidents of school violence were not the subject of previous “I hope that there could be enough free-of-charge mental health counselling provided in our society, and that the government can implement polices to stop school bullying, and that the vulnerable groups can enjoy equal treatment. It would be even better if the media can engage in promotion and advocacy activities, standing up against school bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”“Now, Maomao hopes that more schools can offer campus-wide courses pertaining to gender and LGBTI issues, that the government can promulgate and implement pertinent legislation and policy to protect the young people, so they will not suffer from bullying like Maomao once did, and so more people will understand LGBTI people.”校园性别暴力15 16research on school bullying, but nonetheless have an impact on campus safety and students physical and mental health, and therefore cannot be ignored. Not to mention, individual school violence incidents as such do not necessarily reoccur, which makes the prevention, intervention, and response more challenging and demanding a task.Another major finding of this research concerns the complexity of SRGBV. First, SRGBV tends to occur periodically. We find that SRGBV mostly occurs in middle school and relatively less in high school, which requires prevention and intervention policies to be suitably targeted. Secondly, SRGBV mostly occurs in classrooms, hallways, on the way to and back from school, and on the playgrounds, which at large corroborates the findings of Common Languages previous survey on school environment. In this light, the constitution of a safe school environment should also encompass spatial prioritization and targeted plans. Thirdly, SRGBV pertains to various types of violence, including physical violence, verbal violence, psychological violence, sexual violence, institutional violence, and the recently emerged cyber bullying. Moreover, different types of violence more than often occur concomitantly with, rather than independently from, each other. Victims of violent incidents often suffer from multiple types of harm and bullying. Meanwhile, different types of SRGBV tend to occur during different periods of school life. All these characteristics demand stakeholders to be more capable at identifying and mapping SRGBV, which in turn makes awareness raising and technical training extremely important. Finally, there are a variety of SRGBV. The forms and patterns of SRGBV respectively experienced by male and female students are divergent; the unequal power structure between faculty members and students has made gender based violence committed by a teacher a salient problem; and sexual and gender minority students are a vulnerable group in SRGBV. The above examples pertain to power structures between genders, between teachers and students, as well as the sexual-power structures centering on a heterosexual hegemony. This requires anti-school bullying policies, in order to be effective, to adopt a power perspective analysis and to address the awareness of power.From the perspective of social ecological theory, SRGBV constitutes a social ecological system at two levels. First, individual actions embedded in this system are subject to the impact of environmental factors at different levels. Secondly, it is different relevant actors, their respective situational roles, and their behavioral decision making that jointly construct a complete SRGBV incident. According to our findings, silent victims, those asked to offer help but encouraged acquiescence instead, bystanders who stood by, and unrestrained assailants who enjoyed impunity constitute not only the ecological system of SRGBV, but also a subculture of school violence. How to overcome this subculture and locate the entry points to tackle the ecological system of school violence requires the practicableness of anti-school bullying policies and at the same time offers reasons to test and adjust pilot policies in practice. Exactly because there are different actors deeply involved in the vortex of SRGBV, the consequences of such violence have an impact on multiple levels to which no one is immune. First, the physical and psychological health, academic performance and interpersonal relationships of victims are seriously harmed. Secondly, such violence incurs a higher percentage of negative emotions and risky behavior among bystander students. Lastly, the levels of depression and suicidal intention of assailant students are both significantly higher than students who never participated in bullying. In this light, imposing severe punishment at assailants is both arbitrary and unwise, for a violence incident reporting mechanism lacking supportive components is likely ineffective in practice. The fundamental theoretical grounds of short-term policies and long-term designs of education and training should be analysis of the causes of SRGBV and the review of the risk factors related to SRGBV. Gender norms and power structures embedded in social structures and institutions are inseparably connected to the frequent occurrence of SRGBV, behind which lies the cultural violence connotation that includes a rigid binary gender construct, a strict gender characteristics construct, cisgender/heterosexual normativity, unequal 校园性别暴力17 18gender power structures, and the popularity of a culture of socialized violence. As an important unit of society, school is responsible for guiding students in the process of socialization, although it more than often ends up replicating and enhancing gender norms and power structures within a given social structure and institution. The cultural factors mentioned above incarnate into school regime itself, leading to most schools lack of basic systematic institutions to prevent, response to, and tackle SRGBV; lack of comprehensive sex education; and discrimination and marginalization of sexual and gender minority students, all of which serve as a hotbed for SRGBV to burgeon and spread. In everyday school life, multiple factors interact with each other at the individual level, interpersonal level, school level, and societal level, resulting in a reality of SRGBV. Therefore, pertinent legislations and policies eventually need to aim at tackling the culture of violence and institutional violence in SRGBV in order to be robust in eliminating SRGBV; and at deconstructing and targeting risk factors at different levels in order to be effective in responding to SRGBV incidents. From April 2016 to December 2017, the Chinese government consecutively promulgated three policy documents pertaining to school bullying in the forms of notifications, guidelines, and plans. These documents put forward clear requests to tackle school bullying, to some extent improved the definition of school bullying behaviors, proposed detailed measures to prevent school bullying, standardized the responding procedure, and clarified the responsibility of relevant agencies. To improve current policies, we propose the following policy recommendations. In terms of achieving institutional improvement: formulate anti-school bullying legislations and policies at a higher legislative and administrative level anti-school bullying legislations and policies should encompass