Black Girls Doing Time for White Boys’ Crime? Considering Columbine’s Security Legacy Through an Intersectional Lens

• Author: Lynn A. Addington
• Published date: 01 August 2019
• Date: 01 August 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1043986219840205
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986219840205

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

2019, Vol. 35(3) 296 –314

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1043986219840205

journals.sagepub.com/home/ccj

Article

Black Girls Doing Time

for White Boys’ Crime?

Considering Columbine’s

Security Legacy Through

an Intersectional Lens

Lynn A. Addington1

Abstract

The 20th anniversary of the deadly shootings at Columbine High School provides an

opportunity to take stock of policy changes it prompted. Two were the increased use of

security personnel and exclusionary discipline. Although neither started in response to

Columbine, both were greatly expanded in the wake of that event. Both also contributed

to the current punitive school climate that has negatively affected students, particularly

students of color. This article considers the experiences of Black girls. This focus is

important given the general lack of attention given to Black girls despite their greater

disparity in rates of discipline especially for minor, subjective infractions. This article seeks

to provide a summary of the current literature to highlight trends in the use of security,

the resulting disproportionate effect on Black girls, and the need to bring an intersectional

perspective into current calls to reduce exclusionary discipline. The patterns summarized

in this article highlight the need for criminologists, in particular, to include the experiences

of Black girls in the post-Columbine security and policy discussions.

Keywords

exclusionary discipline, school-to-prison pipeline, intersectionality, school violence

The fatal shootings at Columbine High School in April 1999 prompted a variety of

policy proposals to address a perceived growing epidemic of school violence

(Muschert, Henry, Bracy, & Peguero, 2014; Muschert & Peguero, 2010). The most

1American University, Washington, DC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Lynn A. Addington, Department of Justice, Law and Criminology, American University, 4400

Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20016-8043, USA.

Email: adding@american.edu

840205CCJXXX10.1177/1043986219840205Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeAddington

research-article2019

Addington 297

popular initial security responses involved implementing visible surveillance mea-

sures and enforcing rules with stricter sanctions (Addington, 2014). These changes

sent a clear “get tough” message to students (both to reassure the fearful and discour-

age potential offenders) and parents (to placate demands for greater school safety).

This reaction to Columbine played an important role in solidifying a punitive stance to

school discipline, which would remain a dominant policy orientation for years after

the shootings. The enduring nature of these changes can be attributed to continued

concerns about school violence (which were reinforced by subsequent school shoot-

ings) and policies such as No Child Left Behind, societal tolerance to greater surveil-

lance after 9/11, and reactions arising from fears of a minority threat in schools (e.g.,

Advancement Project, 2010; Hirschfield, 2008; Rocque & Snellings, 2018; Welch &

Payne, 2010).1

Two initial policy changes were the use of security personnel, particularly police,

in schools and the reliance on exclusionary discipline in the form of zero-tolerance and

related policies. Neither started in response to Columbine, but both were expanded in

the wake of that event. This expansion was despite a lack of evidence that either tactic

reduced school violence in general or fatal violence in particular. Both policies,

though, contributed to an academic environment that disproportionately punishes stu-

dents of color (Skiba, 2015). One reaction to this consequence has been an effort to

explore alternatives to address school violence, including programs to promote posi-

tive school behavior and restorative justice strategies (Hirschfield, 2018). Initial eval-

uations find these options reduce exclusionary discipline, but not racial disparity in its

use (Skiba, 2015; Vincent, Randall, Cartledge, Tobin, & Swain-Bradway, 2011).

Scholars, especially those writing from an education perspective, suggest a need to

include cultural responsiveness to these policies to directly address racial dispropor-

tionality (Gregory, Skiba, & Mediratta, 2017; Vincent et al., 2011). In this context,

cultural responsiveness seeks for schools to recognize the “need to be responsive to

the needs of diverse students” and to critically examine whether forms of discipline

that in theory are developed to be race neutral actually work that way in practice

(Skiba, 2015, p. 117).

This article considers the legacy of the increased presence of school security offi-

cers and exclusionary discipline practices in connection with specific consequences

for Black girls. This focus is for a few reasons. One is to confront the irony of this

pattern as the Columbine shooters as well as almost all the mass school shooters since

have been White males (Hobbs, 2018). Another is to help remedy an omission in the

literature. Although researchers have long recognized racial disparities in exclusionary

discipline, only recently have they focused on the experiences of Black girls (Hines-

Datiri & Carter Andrews, 2017). This gap ignores that Black girls can experience

disparity rates greater than those for Black boys (Skiba, 2015) as well as White and

Hispanic girls (Crenshaw, Ocen, & Nanda, 2015; E. W. Morris & Perry, 2017).2 In

addition, the lack of attention to Black girls minimizes the need for an intersectional

perspective to explain these outcomes. In particular, an intersectional perspective can

identify ways to tailor future policy suggestions. Criminologists in particular tend to

offer generic policy responses when discussing school security. Important insights can