Police in the Hallways 2011
DOI: 10.5749/minnesota/9780816675524.003.0007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Underlife Oppositional Behavior at Urban Public High School

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Second, by developing the framework of institutional offloading with the case of crossover youth, the findings challenge the (often implicit) assumption that more coercive institutions automatically assume responsibility for people sent their way, resulting in the funneling of marginalized state subjects toward increasingly coercive control over the life course. The present study does not question the wealth of evidence documenting how institutional actors direct members of marginalized groups-particularly those who are poor and Black or Brown-toward coercive control (Fong 2020;Gowan and Whetstone 2012;Harris 2009;Kohler-Hausmann 2018;Nolan 2011;Rios 2011;Shedd 2015;Simmons 2020;Stuart 2016), nor am I disputing the notion that penal institutions often become "warehouses" or "dumping grounds" for populations perceived as unmanageable by other state institutions (Emerson 1969;Garland 1985;Jacobs 1990;Wacquant 2009). Rather, the framework of institutional offloading developed here encourages us to understand coercive control as an interlocking state process.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 57%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Second, by developing the framework of institutional offloading with the case of crossover youth, the findings challenge the (often implicit) assumption that more coercive institutions automatically assume responsibility for people sent their way, resulting in the funneling of marginalized state subjects toward increasingly coercive control over the life course. The present study does not question the wealth of evidence documenting how institutional actors direct members of marginalized groups-particularly those who are poor and Black or Brown-toward coercive control (Fong 2020;Gowan and Whetstone 2012;Harris 2009;Kohler-Hausmann 2018;Nolan 2011;Rios 2011;Shedd 2015;Simmons 2020;Stuart 2016), nor am I disputing the notion that penal institutions often become "warehouses" or "dumping grounds" for populations perceived as unmanageable by other state institutions (Emerson 1969;Garland 1985;Jacobs 1990;Wacquant 2009). Rather, the framework of institutional offloading developed here encourages us to understand coercive control as an interlocking state process.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…A wealth of evidence illustrates how institutional actors direct people perceived as unmanageable toward more coercive control, resulting in transfers from schools and hospitals to the child welfare system (Fong 2020); the child welfare system to juvenile delinquency court (Emerson 1969;Jacobs 1990;Simmons 2020); schools to police (Nolan 2011;Rios 2011;Shedd 2015); juvenile court to adult court (Harris 2009); and drug treatment programs to incarceration (Gowan and Whetstone 2012). Together, these accounts offer important takeaways.…”
Section: Governing Marginalized Groups Across the Life Coursementioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…At the same time, “successful” bracketing—considering harassment that occurs between girls or toward girls based on sexuality as HIB—should not be automatically taken to be the primary solution to this issue, as punitive intervention at the level of the individual student likewise does not address broader structural issues that work to generate gendered, racialized, and classed forms of bullying. Law enforcement in school contexts exacerbates justice disparities (Crenshaw et al, 2015; Nolan, 2011; Shedd, 2015). In short, we are not trying to argue that the HIB law is necessarily the best mechanism for addressing peer harassment, but instead that it serves a function of marking what is blatantly unacceptable peer behavior.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%