How the Juvenile Justice System is Broken: The Bullies in Blue Need the Boot

In the United States, the Juvenile Justice system is the collection of multiple state and local court-based systems that handle minors who come in contact with law enforcement, are accused of breaking the law, or are convicted of criminal offences.

According to the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, in the state of Texas, out of the thousand school districts over three hundred of them have their own internal police department. According to Michael Antu, the Deputy Chief of the Commission, of the hundred and ninety-two law enforcement agencies that have been created in Texas since 2017, ninety-nine of them are school police departments. The uniformed police officers who are placed at schools across the country are known as “School Resource Officers” or SROs. Their job is to patrol the school and make sure that it is a safe environment for the students to learn and be, but how safe is it actually?

Many of the schools that have SROs look more like detention centers rather than schools. They are decorated with full-body metal detectors, detection wands, security cameras, and officers as the hall and premise monitors. How are students supposed to feel safe when right outside of their classroom door there is someone who is fully armed and legally allowed to use physical force on them? Students of colour, visible minorities, and physical and mental disabilities are affected the most by the people who are actually meant to keep them safe. They are penalized for every little thing; they are more likely than their white peers to be taken aside or out of class for misbehaving; they are more likely to be physically attacked by an officer; they are more likely to be assumed guilty. The list can go on and on, but the reality is that they have not done anything wrong except being a child. Yet, they are still more likely to go to into the system as a juvenile and again as an adult.

The main reason for SROs is to make sure that there is no illegal activity going on and to deal with it in an orderly fashion (if there is any). However, the ACLU office in Pennsylvania researched the impact of school policing and found that “There is no clear empirical basis for the claim that SROs reduce student crime rates” (Kupchik, 1). If there has not been a reduction in the student crime rates, can we really claim that SROs are actually useful? Or that they are properly doing their jobs? In fact, in an article published by Brookings, they mention that SROs “have been linked with increased arrests for noncriminal, youthful behaviour, [and] fueling the school-to-prison pipeline [program]” (King and Schindler).

The officers are not meant to be educators or reinforcers of the school rules such as dress code, skipping class, or having devices out, yet they still act like they have that authority. SROs flag students for every little thing, creating a file and putting them into the criminal justice system for horseplay or situations that could and should be handled by school educators and administrators. The police officers in schools are doing jobs that they are not trained or meant to do, it creates a concentrated policing site which often leads to the formation of school-to-prison pipeline programs. It should make you sick that school and prison are even in the same sentence, much more the fact that it is hyphenated. There are too many students affected by these programs. These school-to-prison programs are a gateway for these children right into the criminal justice system, it fuels mass incarceration. There are countless. Countless, stories that just prove that officers should not be in schools. The ACLU has an entire page and multiple testimonies from students who have been affected by the officers in their school. I recommend reading them to educate yourself, the link is posted below. Just note that their stories are disheartening.

  1. “Bullies in Blue: The Problem with School Policing.” American Civil Liberties Union, DuckDuckGo, https://www.aclu.org/issues/juvenile-justice/school-prison-pipeline/bullies-blue-problem-school-policing-infographic.
  2. Henning, Kristin. “Cops at the Schoolyard Gate.” Vox, Vox Media, 28 July 2021, https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/22580659/police-in-school-resource-officers-sro.
  3. King, Ryan, and Marc Schindler. “A Better Path Forward for Criminal Justice: Reconsidering Police in Schools.” Brookings, The Brookings Institution, Apr. 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/research/a-better-path-forward-for-criminal-justice-reconsidering-police-in-schools/.
  4. Kupchik, Aaron. “Research on the Impact of School Policing – FISA Foundation.” FISA Foundation, ACLU Pennsylvania, Aug. 2020, https://fisafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Research-on-School-Policing-by-Aaron-Kupchik-July-2020.pdf.
  5. Méndez, María. “Almost 100 Texas School Districts Have Added Their Own Police Departments Since 2017, But Not Everyone Feels Safer.” The Texas Tribune, The Texas Tribune, 15 June 2022, https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/15/uvalde-school-officers-texas-shootings/#:~:text=Today%2C%20there%20are%20309%20school,deputy%20chief%20of%20the%20commission.
  6. “What Is Juvenile Justice?” The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 13 Dec. 2020, https://www.aecf.org/blog/what-is-juvenile-justice.

Effects of Appearance Discrimination on Children and How to Remedy It

Appearance discrimination is treating a person unfairly because of how they look. It has been found that the prevalence of discrimination because of physical appearance is significantly higher in girls.[i] Gender discrimination can be the real motive of appearance-based discrimination.[ii]

Appearance discrimination needs more awareness because most people do not consider discrimination based on physical appearance[iii] and yet it has a huge impact on many young people, especially today. In one study, the most prevalent was discrimination because of physical appearance.[iv]

Appearance discrimination often results in bullying for many young people, whether it is done consciously or unconsciously.[v]Unfortunately, in a study, many people that have a visible difference said that their school didn’t do anything to stop them from being bullied.[vi] Another study’s results showed that almost 20% of the adolescents questioned were exposed to discrimination, most frequently to discrimination because of physical appearance.[vii]

If the results of appearance discrimination are not addressed, it can have drastic impacts on how young people view themselves and their futures. Some studies have revealed troubling statistics of the outcomes.

  • 43% of people with a visible difference said it had an impact on their ambition or aspiration in relation to college or university.[viii] More than a fifth (22.3%) of respondents said that their appearance affected their decision on moving into further or higher education.[ix]
  • There are suggestions that people who face discrimination at a young age are more likely to develop behavioral and mental health problems later in life.[x]
  • Appearance discrimination can result in poor body image, which can lead to unhealthy eating habits and decreased self-esteem.[xi]

How to Rectify:

More education and workshops, like Dove’s “Confident Me” lesson workshops[xii], to teach young children about appearance discrimination and empower them to make a difference and feel confident in themselves.

Educating teachers and education professionals what they can do to support children with a visible difference or dealing with these issues and create an inclusive learning environment for all pupils. This could include talking to students about visible differences, addressing appearance-related bullying, and recognizing and challenging unconscious bias.

Parents should educate themselves, as well as their children, on visible differences and helping tackle discrimination by introducing children to the idea of difference at a young age. There are books, TV shows, films, and toys that explore visible difference and disfigurements and challenge myths and stereotypes about those that look different.

Finding ways to increase the representation of those with visible differences in mainstream media. If there can be a way to change the narrative from only being what society deems as “beautiful” is “good,” while the protagonists and villains are visibly different in some way, then there could be some positive changes made when it comes to appearance discrimination.


[i] Laura Bitto Urbanova et al., Adolescents exposed to discrimination: are they more prone to excessive internet use?

[ii] Marcel Schwantes, New Research Reveals Why ‘Appearance Discrimination’ Is Making Workplace Even More Toxic

[iii] Cherea Hammer, A Look into Lookism: An Evaluation of Discrimination Based on Physical Attractiveness

[iv] Bitto Urbanova et al., Adolescents exposed to discrimination: are they more prone to excessive internet use?

[v] https://www.changingfaces.org.uk/for-professionals/teachers/guidance-training-cpd/physical-appearance-discrimination-schools/

[vi] Id.

[vii] Bitto Urbanova et al., Adolescents exposed to discrimination: are they more prone to excessive internet use?

[viii] https://www.changingfaces.org.uk/for-professionals/teachers/guidance-training-cpd/physical-appearance-discrimination-schools/

[ix] Id.

[x] Joe Hernandez, A study links facing discrimination at a young age with future mental health issues

[xi] Amy Morin, How Exposure to the Media Can Harm Your Teen’s Body Image

[xii] https://www.dove.com/us/en/dove-self-esteem-project/school-workshops-on-body-image-confident-me/confident-me-appearance-discrimination.html

Through the lens of the US Child Welfare System: Disproportionate treatment of Black children Part 1

First, looking from a historical view of Black families in the early days of the child welfare system showed signs of prejudice and racial processes and procedures. In 1973, Wilder v. Sugarman was brought by the NY Civil Liberties Union, which sues NY City for using racial discrimination in their child welfare system processes and procedures. [i] Shirley A. Wilder, a Black 12-year-old, was rejected services from city-funded Roman Catholic or Jewish foster-care agencies, which resulted in Shirley receiving lower-quality care.[ii] The suit, later taken over by American Civil Liberties Union, was finally settled in 1986.[iii] The settlement did require NY city to use a more fair and equal process for their child welfare system, but from Shirley’s view, she was around 24 years old by this time.[iv] That time-lapse brought an oppressive systemic issue to Shirley’s involvement with the child welfare system. Due to Shirley being a Black child, she was forced to receive lower-quality care, and this oppression more than likely affected many other Black children.

Additionally, in 1974 the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) was passed to deal with the national problem of child abuse.[v] The goal of CAPTA is to tackle reports of child abuse by providing funds and guidance to states, public agencies, and nonprofit organizations.[vi] CAPTA, which has been amended several times, was put in place to rectify child abuse cases.[vii] Yet, the proportion of children in need of abusive situations is small, and there lacks sufficient evidence that the services provided through CAPTA have reduced abusive incidents.[viii]

From the time of passing CAPTA, the child welfare program’s representation of Black children started increasing. With this increase, the process of screening, investigating, and assessing Black families who had a report of child abuse and/or neglect became more likely to be assigned for investigation. In the state of Texas, a study found that even when a Black family has a lower risk score than Whites, Blacks were more likely to have their case acted upon, either by some type of service provision or possibly having the child taken away from the parents. This sample shows that the individuals who work the cases have dissimilar risk approaches based on a family’s racial makeup. [ix] With the federal statute of CAPTA being enacted, there was a trickle-down effect to ensure that this legislation is making a broad change in abuse cases. Yet, statistics and studies show that the broad change with the passage of CAPTA targets Black families. Black families are seen through the media and others implicit/explicit bias as the families that are more than likely abusing their children at higher rates than other racial families. This has put a detrimental burden on Black families to not only do their best to not be reported to not experience such scorn treatment from a broken CPS system, but also it creates an oppressive feeling that no matter how hard a Black mother and/or father might try to avoid being reported abuse and neglect there is a still a strong possibility a small slip up can result in a broken family.


[i] Wilder v. Sugarman, 385 F. Supp. 1013 (U.S. D. N.Y. 1974).

[ii] Id.

[iii] Wilder v. Bernstein, 645 F. Supp. 1292 (U.S. D. N.Y. 1986).

[iv] Id.

[v] Lindsey Duncan, The Welfare of Children, 22 W. Mich. Univ. The J. of Socio. & Socio. Welfare 148 (1955).

[vi] Id.

[vii] Id.

[viii] Id.

[ix] Supra at note 2 (May 15, 2021, 5:05 PM).