Considering the Identity of White Boys in the Classroom

In my time in public education, there have been a select few students who passed through my service in special education who exhibited nearly identical behaviors and/or carried a familiar disposition, fitting a similar archetype that my fellow educators and I recognized. These students would gain a reputation among staff for their behaviors. Many would run around the building, become aggressive with other students (or staff), and were almost constantly in a state of mental and emotional distress in a way that was clearly felt on a fundamental level, though it appeared ultimately performative. These students felt as though the whole world was against them, that they were disproportionately targeted by everyone around them, and that their survival was a constant, ever-present conflict between themselves and the rest of the world. 

All of these students were white males.

The Students We Aren’t Studying

For some time, academic research and pedagogical focus on intersectional student identity have treated the in-group identity (within a given sociological paradigm) as the standard from which other identities deviate. As a result of this, the intersectional study of the in-group, be that of whiteness, maleness, heterosexuality, neurotypicality, et cetera, has been academically overlooked on the basis of their identity (for their whiteness, for instance, rather than simply because they are the most centered voices and considered as standards, or control groups, in research; while the wealth of academic research over the past few centuries have been focused on white males, this research does not consider their whiteness or maleness inherently) which therefore inhibits our ability to accurately understand the sociological paradigms to which these identities belong. 

In order to accurately and comprehensively understand and address race and gender as greater systems within the classroom, and how they affect students of all identities, an evaluation and study of whiteness and maleness, and how these factors affect and shape the behavior, development, and identities of white boys is essential. Understanding these forces may help educators respond to and address isolation, emotional dysregulation, misogyny, racism, and other harmful/violent behaviors, implicit and explicit. The praxis fundamental to this conversation is understanding this behavior without excusing it. These behaviors cannot be adequately addressed without a focus on rehabilitation for the perpetrators and protection for the victims. Punishment alone cannot address bigotry on a municipal level (the criminal justice system proves that); rehabilitation and directly addressing the causes of these behaviors will lead to greater efficacy in building a more equitable classroom.

Among educators, the archetype of that young white boy with emotional dysregulation, poor social development, and consistent use of violent language and, in the most extreme (though not uncommon) circumstances, routine violent behavior in the classroom is a familiar one. As educators, we understand that violent tendencies and behaviors are not innate and are the products of existing social, cultural, and environmental factors. However, where, among other racial and ethnic groups, there is a wide breadth of existing research focused on what factors produce this behavior, there’s a disproportionate lack of research for their white male counterparts, despite committing proportionately equal objective behavioral infractions, such as violent behavior in the classroom (though subjective disciplinary action and referrals are disproportionately directed towards students of color, such as “disruption” or “disrespect”). While this data is equal in schools, it is heightened severely for acts of mass violence, which are overwhelmingly committed by white males. Considering the causes of this violent behavior, and certainly the performative, often quite vocal nature of it, is of great utility to all educators, especially those working in areas of dense behavioral needs.

However, where, among other racial and ethnic groups, there is a wide breadth of existing research focused on what factors produce this behavior, there’s a disproportionate lack of research for their white male counterparts, despite committing proportionately equal objective behavioral infractions, such as violent behavior in the classroom (though subjective disciplinary action and referrals are disproportionately directed towards students of color, such as “disruption” or “disrespect”).

Understanding Whiteness and Masculinity

The coercive factors of white supremacy and patriarchy instruct and condition behaviors in all who live within them, including those who benefit and are awarded privilege from those systems. In order to understand why these systems generate violent behavioral patterns in white boys, it’s necessary to understand what, exactly, whiteness and manhood are in relation to these systems which replace their natural dispositions. While my commentary here is by no means comprehensive, it will suffice as grounds for analysis and introducing an actionable framework. 

That race and gender are socially constructed and enforced by the performance of one’s identity, subconsciously upheld in a panopticon-esque reinforcement structure and the collective insecurities of peers, has become cemented as academic consensus. As history and scholarship will testify, race is not a scientific or biological genetic factor. Race was invented to justify the subjugation and enslavement of African and indigenous peoples.

Furthermore, “whiteness” is a quite new, modern concept. Developed as a manner of upholding white supremacy and disrupting class solidarity, “whiteness” gradually absorbed various marginalized immigrant communities, predominantly Europeans (those particularly light in complexion), on a social contract, offering the security and freedom from oppression (as many of these immigrant groups, such as Irish and Italians, were heavily marginalized in the early twentieth century), in exchange for conformity, homogeneity, and upholding white supremacy as a means of oppressing people of color; defending the interests of capital in the process, since American capitalism is fundamentally structured around the racial caste. By promising safety and stirring discontent among otherwise racially diverse movements of class solidarity, united in collective racial and class oppression, whiteness grew and expanded, defining itself in the process. 

Thus, in terms of praxis, whiteness is, by nature, an oppressive and coercive social and cultural identity, founded upon conformity. In the nature of all monocultures, this necessity for homogeneity breeds discontentment, as the acceptability that whiteness requires, the upholding of certain aesthetics and niceties, prohibits self-expression and the emancipation of the self. Thus, all interests or tendencies that deviate from this standard of whiteness and the culture of politeness is antithetical to the social code of whiteness, creating feelings of rejection and isolation among young white people, especially white men, syncretic with the further coercive factors of patriarchy.

This spirit of rebellion that then forms among white boys, who, naturally, deviate from these cultural standards (thus is the nature of human beings; to be themselves), is intense; yet, ultimately, performative. In my experiences as an educator working with white boys who struggle with behavioral dysregulation, you can sense not only the desire for attention, but also a yearning for social disruption. These boys often pine for an acknowledgment that they are doing something different, that they are doing something wrong to make them feel special, to know they are rejecting the strict norms ordained for them by society at large.

They embrace “edgy humor” (bigotry and hate) to get a reaction, to get someone to pay attention to them or give them a sense of personhood and social power (since they do hold systemic power) that white supremacy and patriarchy otherwise fail to give them the sense of on the basis of their inadequacy in performing them. Life on the fringes is adopted by many-a white boy and white man, and that sense of differentiation is felt, though they are still protected by white supremacy, and there is no meaningful threat or harm that could come to them as a result of their “outcastation.”

No threat of violence, systemic or otherwise, could or would come to them in their isolation; it is merely opted for to embody the still real though materially insignificant isolation that these boys feel. It should be noted, though, that despite there being no material or objective factors that force this isolation, despite the fact that it is performative, it is still a phenomenon worth contending with because it is real (or feels real) to the young boys experiencing it. Though the isolation is surface level, it is internalized on a meaningful level; even if there is no quantifiable threat or cause for it, there are quantifiable threats and effects of it, and that sense of unbelonging can be, and is, traumatic, regardless of its material realities. It is worth reiterating, white males do benefit from white supremacy (that should be obvious); it is a system fundamentally created to protect them and their interests. However, as a system built upon marginalization and exclusion, it is one that, while protecting them, still negatively impacts them. 

White supremacy and patriarchy are not analogous, though they are systems that operate not dissimilar to one another. Patriarchy, like white supremacy, is a systemic mode of power and hierarchy that disproportionately marginalizes women through the social coercion of all who live within it performing gender, and is socially maintained through collective policing of identity. Patriarchy, like white supremacy, is fundamentally structured to protect the interests of and uphold male supremacy, specifically white male supremacy (it is worth noting that patriarchy and white supremacy, especially in America, do not exist in a vacuum; a white supremacist patriarchy, patriarchal white supremacy). Patriarchy, like white supremacy, while protecting the in-group that it is designed to defend and uphold, also negatively impacts them. Patriarchy, like white supremacy, enforces a coercive structure of identity, rendering those under it the freedom and autonomy to express themselves, herding them into rigid archetypes of masculinity and femininity, respectively. 

However, the immutable plays an even more central role when it comes to patriarchal identity for white males and their ability to adequately perform it, since the image of ideal masculinity is determined only in part by social performance and self-identity, and equally determined by the body and its immutable characteristics. Oftentimes, white boys who exhibit violent tendencies or embrace the ethos of the “outcast,” in one way or another, fail to achieve an aesthetic characteristic of masculinity. They might be short, underweight, overweight, not conventionally attractive, and so on and so forth. They could be queer, gender queer, or otherwise fail to meet certain romantic or sexual archetypes, such as asexuality or polyamory.

This is amplified by considerations of mental and emotional health, as well; these white boys are often neurodivergent (though not exclusive in this regard, there being a diagnostic privilege in terms of recognition and treatment for these disorders for white students compared to their peers of color; the same applies on a gendered basis, boys disproportionately evaluated compared to girls), or bear a chronic illness of some kind, are disabled in some way, et cetera. Class is, as always, another proponent of this; young boys from impoverished backgrounds carry that chip on their shoulders since the aesthetic of the breadwinner is fundamental to adequate images of fetishized masculinity. 

Self-identity still does, however, play a role, and the municipal acts of masculinity are oftentimes not only the most visible, but the most severe, as well. Men protect their sense of masculinity, are taught to, more than perhaps anything else, since young boys (and grown men) are conditioned to associate their performance of masculinity with their worth and source of self-regard. This is why boys are held to scrutiny by their peers and their superiors, on their favorite colors, the ways they talk, the relationships they have with their peers, and in an infinitude of other ways. This can appear in any number of ways in the classroom. For instance, how a male teacher interacts with male students.

In my experience in schools at all levels, from elementary to high schools, male students who exhibit signs of affection have been criticized by their peers with far more scrutiny than their female peers, who receive none at all. A male student who asks me, as a male teacher, for a hug often receives a barrage of criticism that never occurs when female students do the same. These boys are often, despite being children, called out for “hugging another man.” Their peers are unable to differentiate the paternal or platonic affection these boys feel for their male teachers, the same way many do for their female teachers (to which their peers do not bat an eye), since they are all, regardless of race or gender, conditioned to treat the affection of men and boys differently.

Male affection is socially conditioned as inherently romantic or sexual unless in a position of authority (for instance, I do not, nor do any of my male coworkers, receive these types of comments in these circumstances because, as adult men, we are socially permitted paternal or otherwise “protective” modes of affection). Many of the young white boys who adopt that spirit of the “outcast” conjointly reject the rigid standards of white supremacy and patriarchy, despite, once again, being protected by those systems yet still, once again, being negatively impacted by them. Even if this rejection is materially superficial—white males do not face the threats of outcastation from these systems, such as racial- or gender based physical and sexual violence; in fact, they are often the perpetuators of these acts in order to reclaim or substantiate their whiteness and/or masculinity—it is an internalized and traumatic rejection of failing to fit the abject standards expected of them as white boys and men, thus creating that perpetual sense of rejection. These boys are still, however, wedded to these systems, since it is what they know—all they know—thus, in the process of their rejection, they perpetuate the most harmful aspects of their identities.

When Isolation Becomes Anger

This outcastation breeds antisocial behavior and festers racist, misogynistic, and homophobic tendencies, since these young white boys are misguided (by the media they consume, by the adults in their lives, et cetera) into blaming women and people of color for their isolation, despite the fact that everyone is suffering under the same imperialist, white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy. On an interpersonal level, all people are negatively impacted, in some way, by patriarchy and white supremacy, and the rejection from these systems often leads to stronger connections to them.

There is a reason why overcompensation of masculinity is recognized on a cultural level: most people recognize that it is happening, but fail to meaningfully engage with how they are complicit in it, or how it is affecting them. To challenge one’s relationship to these systems would be to undergo a complete metamorphosis and process of unlearning, disregarding the necessity of conforming to and engaging with these systems for their entire lives. 

This isolation that white boys exhibit and perform, however, looks different among other groups and identities, for reasons that are deserving of their own conversations.

This isolation that white boys exhibit and perform, however, looks different among other groups and identities, for reasons that are deserving of their own conversations. White supremacy and patriarchy were never made to serve people of color; thus these systems manifest differently in various racial and ethnic communities. Queer people often reject gendered systems entirely at a young age due to their coming to terms with, by definition, not belonging within them; those that reject form their own modes of survival and resilience, those that do not tend to then embody the most harmful tendencies of white supremacy and patriarchy (and become caucus members). Perhaps since there is no material threat, then, yet that sense of isolation and rejection is so prevalent, white boys embrace this identity of outcastation so fundamentally, and ground their identity in it.

Since they are not given the tools, either by their communities or by public education, they do not have the ability to unpack these things, and thus perpetually amplify their own isolation and suffering. This leads to often performative behavioral patterns, acting out either for attention or out of an inability to process their emotions any other way. Men, generally, are taught that the only healthy—or, rather, permissible—expression of negative emotions is anger. Where young boys of color are tempered in this anger and coerced into submission and suppression of their emotions, white boys are rarely meaningfully disciplined or challenged in the expression of their anger. There is no material threat or harm that could come to them in the expression of their emotions, and thus they are enabled in this behavior on a social and cultural level, until, so often, this behavior becomes criminal. 

What Educators Can Do

The praxis of educators on an individual basis does not have the ability to disassemble white supremacy and patriarchy as it proliferates throughout the lives of all who live under them, students and teachers; the white noise of Western Civilization. However, educators do have the ability to disarm the grip that these systems have over students and, in the case of young white males, challenge the prevailing tendencies that society conditions them into. 

Positive reinforcement of healthy behaviors, such as crying, voicing negative emotions (such as fear, anxiety, or anger), or communicating through conflict, is a useful and tangible way of reeducating students who experience emotional dysregulation. Rewarding these behaviors, even passively or subtly, can reinforce and enable them to express them. Even among well-meaning and well-educated teachers, I consistently witness young boys either being criticized or feeling isolated for crying. In my observational experience, working across all grade levels and many different schools, teachers tend to bring more attention to male students when they’re crying compared to their female counterparts; culturally, we seem more enabled to ask young boys why they are crying, rather than acknowledging that it is an acceptable and natural, way of expressing their emotions.

Anecdotally, I often find boys are more comfortable crying as a way of expressing their emotions around me after positively enabling the response: small gestures, such as either not bringing explicit attention to it, telling them that there’s nothing to be ashamed of if they apologize for it (as they often do), or reinforcing afterward, saying things such as “I’m glad you’re expressing these feelings and letting yourself feel them rather than holding it in.” Oftentimes, if I am in a controlled space outside of the classroom, having a conversation with students experiencing emotional turmoil, I will outright encourage them to express those feelings, including anger (without violence or aggression; the differentiation must be made), saying: “Take your time now and feel what you need to feel, where we won’t disrupt or harm anyone else.” This can direct students to know what opportunities and circumstances are healthy to release negative emotions and emphasize harm reduction in expressing their emotions.

Nursing or rehabilitating the feelings of the perpetrators should not treat the victims as collateral damage; thus, separating these students while still giving them the opportunity to speak their minds and feel their feelings is important. If a bias or hatred is behind their outburst, it’s best for us, as adults and educators, to hear that in a controlled space and adequately address it and its effects, rather than let it fester unchallenged.

Furthermore, as with all circumstances of conflict in education, de-escalation must be emphasized. It’s important for us to remember, as educators, that though we understand, for instance, that boys disproportionately commit behavioral infractions, those boys do not often realize that, unfamiliar with the statistical demographics of pedagogy and behavioral discipline as they are; therefore, it is helpful praxis to, at least to the best of our ability, make students not feel singled out, or as though they’re being treated unfairly, even if what they are doing is wrong. Especially for students who already express and internalize feelings of isolation, this could only further exacerbate those feelings and tendencies.

The tendency of educators to overemphasize their own need for respect and authority often leads to real escalation between teachers and students. What may begin as a single minor behavior can escalate into complete class disruption if the teacher—as we do, more often than we’d like to admit—takes it personally. It’s important to remember that we exercise discipline and teach positive behavioral patterns not to uphold authority, but to help students understand how to process their feelings in safe and healthy ways.

It’s essential to prompt, challenge, and question these thoughts and feelings in students to help them dismantle these ideas and the control they have over their lives. Oftentimes, it can be as simple as challenging the most superficial toxicities of masculinity; anecdotally, I will often wear pink and purple to work, and when students (regardless of gender, as they unfailingly do) ask why I, as a man, am wearing pink shoes, I ask them why it matters. When exploring expressions of masculinity with young boys, it’s important to maintain that their self-expression has no bearing on their performance of masculinity; their manhood remains unaffected. While I, and other male educators that I have worked with, challenge or defy traditional images of masculinity, my identity is still undeniably masculine as a heterosexual male. This is difficult for many students to grasp, struggling to rectify the image of a masculine-presenting man, in an overtly masculine body, wearing a pink backpack and arms of colorful bracelets. In the process in understanding that what so often feels like an existential threat to their being and self-identity is ultimately harmless, having positive adult figures who show and tell that their self-expression will not irrevocably dismantle their identity, students begin to unpack and process what that identity means and what it looks like.

Accountability and Empathy Must Coexist

It’s essential to consider, in this dialogue, how students of marginalized identities are affected by the behavior of predominantly white boys in the classroom, and how to address those behaviors with those white boys. In our endeavor to address the causes of bigoted behavior and hate in our classrooms, students of marginalized identities must not become collateral damage in the journey of rehabilitation for the perpetrator. Accountability and empathy must coexist, and both are equally necessary in addressing the issue. The ability for young people to unpack and understand racial or gender politics is, predictably, limited. Furthermore, the ability for educators to meaningfully tackle and address these issues in classrooms is also limited, given modern political circumstances in public education. However, there are ways to confront, address, and rehabilitate the marginalizing and discriminatory tendencies of young people in ways that they can understand, while supporting students who are victims of this behavior, and won’t violate any lines for educators. 

Of course, disciplinary action exists for students who discriminate against or mistreat peers on these bases, though these actions often fail to comprehensively address the discriminatory behavior and, contrary to the rhetorical motion of American political education post-Reagan, the vast majority of bigoted action in America is upheld municipally (rather than through overt, recognizable acts of hate). Misogyny, for instance, is far less often direct acts of gender based violence (though the prevalence of this should not be undermined), and is far more often the use of dehumanizing or violent language towards women, which ultimately leads to acts of gender based violence. The same applies to other bigoted actions towards other marginalized communities; how students of the in-group perpetuate stereotypes, address the whole of the out-group, and, of course, commit outright acts of hate, such as the use of slurs, physical aggression, or other modes of violence.

Recognizing the needs of students who are victimized by discriminatory behavior is necessary as effective praxis and, naturally, a crucial part of this process. It’s essential that students feel seen and that their feelings are expressed and acknowledged when they are victimized by this behavior, and that reinforcement of behavioral expectations is made clear. It’s important to emphasize, in this process, not just that the perpetrator faces consequences for the actions, but that reasons why these behaviors are harmful are explored directly with both parties. Too often, students who perpetrate marginalizing behavior are punished, but not challenged meaningfully or questioned in that behavior by educators who do not contend with or explore that topic or conversation. 

Addressing bigoted and discriminatory action in the classroom is very difficult in our modern political environment, though these often covert redirections can be in the form of shifting language. Consider the aforementioned dehumanizing or violent language used towards women; male students speaking of their female peers as objects, or as others, rather than as fellow people. It is worth questioning in these circumstances why the use of that language is, to them, acceptable toward girls: Would you speak to, or about, fellow boys that way? Do you think it’s okay for you, as a boy, to behave that way toward girls? Why? Do you think you are entitled to the attention of the girls or women around you? If our ability, as educators, to explore greater systems of discrimination is limited by the modern political environment—speaking directly as a teacher in the South—these lines of questioning, this system of unpacking, can leave a profound effect on students.

Addressing language in the classroom generally can house some of the greatest efficacy in our approach, as educators, to these young boys who express and experience these things. What makes something “for girls?” What makes it unacceptable for boys to wear certain colors or behave certain ways? Is there anything in particular that makes you feel so isolated, or misunderstood? What are the things you feel other people “don’t understand” about you? These questions and conversations can be gateways into rehabilitation for a demographic of boys that, historically (particularly in recent history), have exhibited some of the most dangerous outcomes, both to themselves and to others. That white males make up the vast majority of spree shootings and acts of mass violence, that white males make up a significant portion of suicides compared to other demographics, that white males make up the majority of sexual violence cases. 

A Five-Step Framework for Educators

Implementing this praxis into an actionable framework, a clear process that can be identified, is a nuanced process, though it will be outlined on a preliminary level here. The most important step in developing any process for addressing these behaviors is, first and foremost, educating ourselves as educators. Particularly in my interactions with veteran teachers, many educators seemingly believe that, once we have our degrees and certification, and especially after we have some experience in the classroom, we know what there is to know about education. As with any discipline, education is always evolving, and it’s important not only that we, as educators, engage as lifelong learners concerning pedagogy, but also as students of sociology. Everyone, at some point, was a student, and hearing their voices and experiences, understanding trends and behaviors among demographics and sociological paradigms, is essential to understanding the experiences of our students as young people. Furthermore, when discriminatory behavior in the classroom, a clear process can be followed, outlined here: 

1. Address the needs of the victim and ensure their physical, mental, and emotional well-being.
2. Engage with the perpetrator and de-escalate, having a healthy and open, communicative dialogue without excusing the behavior.
3. Normalize and encourage emotional expression, recognize where their behavior originates, and communicate a willingness to listen. 
4. Challenge stereotypes of marginalized peoples (racial, gender, sexual, and otherwise) through questions and dialogue rather than humiliation or overt punishment. 
5. Reinforce expectations, be receptive as a learner and how this dialogue with both parties informs your praxis and interactions with students, and work to protect students targeted by discriminatory and/or violent behavior while helping the perpetrator understand its impact. 

This is a blueprint, of course, though a framework informed by the experiences of educators that can help in addressing these actions. Education has made great strides in addressing discrimination in the classroom, but the catharsis of recognition and punishment means nothing if those students who perpetuate these behaviors are not questioned or seen in their actions; beyond discipline, we must understand why these things occur, and meaningfully challenge that why in our students.

Beyond Punishment: The Possibility of Rehabilitation

Ultimately, these boys are never beyond rehabilitation, and educators have the unique capacity to support them in their growth, bolstering community, and developing empathy, even if that mentoring comes from nowhere else in their lives. The necessity for humanization in this process—of humanizing students, in humanizing fellow educators—is more pertinent than ever. If students do not feel seen or humanized, they will not feel spoken to, seen, or connected with on a meaningful level. In our endeavor as educators to build a more equitable, empathetic, and educated generation and society at large, to support our students in their lives and in the world they will inherit, a comprehensive understanding of students, their experiences, and the systems that operate on their development is essential in this mission, including challenging our biases and taking an intersectional approach to pedagogy to meet the needs of, and support, all of our students.