The majority of students are not the direct, personal target of an ethnoviolent or sexually harassing act. However, many of them have been, and feel, victimized by
the presence on campus of defamatory materials. In this chapter we look at those students. We asked students who were not victims of ethnoviolence and sexual
harassment: "Since September, have you personally seen or heard any of the following on campus that you felt was personally insulting because of your race,
ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender?" We then provided them with five categories for response: jokes; leaflets or posters; spray painted or
defaced signs, slogans, or other graffiti; articles or cartoons in the campus newspaper or other publications; and comments on computer bulletin boards or message
centers.

Twenty-four percent of the sample (215 students) said "yes" to at least one incident of "group defamation." The majority of them (56%) indicated that they had
experienced two or more incidents. The basic data are presented in Table 5.1. The table exhibits the pervasiveness of defamatory materials. With the exception of
computer-based incidents (which may be expected to increase as students become more knowledgeable in the use of electronic messaging), defamatory events are
perceived almost equally across all media.

One note of caution: these data are probably an understatement of the level of group defamation. First, for reasons of time in our very long questionnaire, we did not
ask these questions of students who had experienced an ethnoviolent or sexually harassing incident. Presumably, many of them (likely one-fourth) would have also
reported their exposure to group defamatory materials. Second, these data do not include people who saw or heard defamatory materials which applied to groups
other than their own. So, for example, an Asian American student hearing anti-Jewish jokes would not be included here. We will discuss this second category of
indirect victimization in the next section.

With these data we can address the basic question: What happened to whom, and with what effect? To begin, we need to ask if these student targets of group
defamation are distinguished by any of the background characteristics employed in this study. The answer is negative. None of the following distinguished these
students: year in school, status or attendance, age, gender, or residence. Neither did citizenship, political orientation, religion, or disability. Even ethnic background
displayed only slight differences. Regardless of their ethnic background, the students who experienced group defamation perceived an average of two incidents since
the start of the school year. (Because of the sample size, we could only make that comparison among African American, Asian American, Jewish, and White
students.) The percentage of each group reporting defamation ranged from a high of 31% of the African American students to a low of 21% of the Asian American
students, with the Jewish and White students falling in between. There also were only small differences among groups on the types of defamatory events they
perceived (see Appendix A, Table IC.10). These data strongly suggest that overhearing or observing events of group defamation is a relatively random act.
Regardless of who they are, almost one out of four students may encounter events of group defamation, with at least half them in such an encounter more that once
during the academic year.

The symbols and acts of group defamation can make a difference on campus. On a sociological level, for the minority student defamatory acts symbolize a
reaffirmation of majority group power and a hostile campus atmosphere. For the White student, these acts are often perceived as a threat to their status; and for all
students group defamation is typically a reiteration of the common stereotypes of the various groups.

On a psychological level, group defamation can be a discomforting stressor. Accordingly, we asked: "Were you bothered by any of these jokes, leaflets, slogans,
etc?" Approximately 17% of the 208 students responding said that they were not bothered by the defamatory materials; the rest were.

Response n %

Didn't bother me 35 16.8

Bothered, a little 79 38.0

Bothered, somewhat 64 30.8

Bothered, very much 30 14.4

While the semantics of the responses are open to interpretation, four-fifths of the students said they were "bothered," and almost half of them said "somewhat" or
"very much." The meaning of their response is perhaps apparent in their replies to a followup question. We asked those who said they had been bothered: "Which of
the following describes how you felt after you saw or heard any of these jokes, leaflets, slogans, etc?" Their answers are presented in Table 5-2. (Column 2). Two
out of three students emphatically report their anger about the event and almost half say that they repeatedly thought about it. These answers are similar to those
reported by those victimized directly by ethnoviolent or sexually harassing events (Table 5.2, Column 1).

Relatively few of those experiencing group defamation reported the symptoms of fear, nervousness, or withdrawal. This is in sharp contrast to the responses of those
directly victimized by ethnoviolence or sexual harassment. Perhaps the indirect if not impersonal character of group defamation does not evoke these emotional
responses. One question, asked only of group defamation victims, was that of "feeling sad." Sadness is, we believe, one of the demoralizing responses to encounters
with prejudice from people or in places where it seems especially inappropriate. As the table displays, three out ten students reported they "felt sad."

Witness to Group Defamation

In this section we present the next step in the analysis of defamatory acts. In the preceding section, we examined those who had directly experienced an event of
group defamation in which their own membership group was the target. We now look at those students who had witnessed an event of group defamation in which
groups other than their own were the target. Accordingly, we asked students who did not experience group defamation a variation of our original question
substituting "insulting to other people" in place of "personally insulting." The question read: "Since September, have you personally seen or heard any of the following
on campus that you felt was insulting to other people because of their race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender?"

Examining this group of students helps us to understand further the tangible implications of the "campus climate." As we shall see, despite the indirect character of the
events witnessed, they had a substantial and negative impact on many students.

One hundred thirty-five students, approximately 15% of the sample, said "yes" to witnessing at least one incident of group defamation. Half indicated that they had
witnessed only one incident, half witnessed two or more incidents. In total, they had witnessed 242 defamatory incidents. The basic data are presented in Table 5.3.
The table exhibits the character of the defamatory events, with jokes and graffiti being the leading types. A comparison of those who witnessed defamation with
those who personally experienced it, Tables 5.1 and 5.3, indicates that the personal victims perceived more incidents in all categories except jokes. Those personally
insulted also experienced a slightly higher average number of events.

These two categories of events are mutually exclusive in our questionnaire and are exclusive of the direct victimization categories of ethnoviolence and sexual
harassment. So, if students reported direct victimization, we did not ask them about defamatory experiences. If they reported a personal defamatory experience, we
did not ask them about an indirect experience. We did this to facilitate the questionnaire administration, and the reader should consider that this understates students'
experiences since they may actually have experienced any combination of the three. In all 230 students were direct victims; 215 students experienced group
defamation personally; and 135 students perceived defamatory acts which were insulting to others. This encompasses 580 students or 64% of the sample.

As before, there are two further questions we can address with these data. To begin, we need to ask if these student witnesses of group defamation are distinguished
by any of the background characteristics employed in this study. White students were the most likely, and African American students the least likely to perceive acts
of defamation directed at others. Women students seemed more sensitized than men, and liberal and left-oriented students were also more sensitive to group insults
than were conservative and right-oriented students. Prejudice was also a highly significant factor in recognizing defamatory incidents. Students who scored low
(unprejudiced) on our index of social distance (see Chapter 7) were five times more likely to perceive group insults to others than those scoring at the high
(prejudiced) end. None of the other background variables distinguished these students.

Effects of witnessing defamatory materials

Defamatory signs and symbols are a part of the campus climate. Their negative impact on the students responding as witnesses is quite clear. Only 29% were able to
dismiss or ignore the event, while a substantial percentage were considerably bothered:

Response n %

Didn't bother me 38 29.2

Bothered, a little 37 28.5

Bothered, somewhat 33 25.4

Bothered, very much 22 16.9

Two observations need to be made about this distribution of responses. First, it is quite clear that even the witnessing of a defamatory act has a significant
psychological toll. Approximately 42% of the students said that they were bothered somewhat or very much by what they had witnessed. Secondly, as would be
expected, witnessing an act of defamation directed at another group is less traumatic than experiencing a defamatory act directed at one's own membership group.

We have already examined the post traumatic response of those who have been directly victimized by ethnoviolence and sexual harassment as well as those who
experienced group defamation. Now we look at the responses of students who witnessed group defamation (Table 5.2, Column 3). The differences among the
responses are complex. Approximately two-thirds of the students indirectly victimized do report anger over what they had seen. Two-fifths report thinking about the
event repeatedly and sadness about it. This is similar to those who experienced defamation of their own group. In contrast, the direct victims of ethnoviolence and
sexual harassment became afraid, nervous, and withdrawn.

Words do wound. While these wounds are most pronounced when the words are directed personally, even witnesses to such events are not left unscathed.

The Isolates

Almost one-third of the students sampled were untouched by matters of ethnoviolence on campus. There were 303 such students. They had not been personally
victimized by a sexually harassing or prejudice-motivated act. They had not seen or heard about such acts on campus. They had not experienced personally, or as an
observer, any form of group defamation on campus. Who were these students? What isolated them from these events?

To answer our questions, we looked at their general background characteristics. The answers were clearly ecological. What stood out was their more limited
connection to campus. These isolates were more likely to be older, part-time students. They were the least likely to live on campus and the most likely to commute
from outside Baltimore City or County. In all other background characteristics, and on the attitudinal measures we examine in Chapter 7, the isolated students were
not any different from others. It does appear that students can not insulate themselves from the climate of intergroup relations on campus. Only physical distance and
minimal contact can do that, and that's not guaranteed.

Summary

While one-fourth of the students sampled had experienced ethnoviolence or sexual harassment, an additional one-fourth had been exposed to defamatory materials
which they felt were insulting to them. Further, the majority of those had experienced two or more exposures.

Defamatory materials seemed to affect students from all backgrounds and to be present across most media.

Four out of five these students were affected by these acts of group defamation, with almost half saying they were bothered somewhat or very much.

Group defamation victims were saddened, felt angry, and thought repeatedly about the incidents. They did not experience the fear, nervousness, or withdrawal
symptoms that characterized those students who personally experienced an act of ethnoviolence or sexual harassment.

An additional 15% of the students also witnessed a group defamatory act which, while not personally insulting, was recognized as insulting to other people because
of their group membership.

In all, almost two out of three students were victims of ethnoviolence or sexual harassment or experienced group defamation personally or witnessed defamatory acts
which were insulting to others.

Finally, we observed that one-third of the students were untouched by any of these events on campus. These isolates were generally older, part-time, commuters.

Table 5.3 Frequency and percentage of defamatory events perceived as insulting to other people because of their race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual
orientation, or gender.
Event
Reported seeing or hearing (n=135)
n
%
Jokes
110
81.5
Leaflets, posters
46
34.1
Graffiti
59
43.7
Articles, cartoons
35
25.9
Computer bulletin boards
25
18.5
Events seen or heard
One event only
68
50.4
Two
38
28.1
Three
19
14.1
Four or five events
10
7.4
Total
135
100.0

Note: The percentages refer to the number of students who witnessed a defamatory event. The top most cell, for example, indicates that 81.5% personally heard
jokes which were defamatory to others. The bottom half of the table is also based on the number of students who witnessed a defamatory act. The top cell of that
part indicates that 50.4% of the students who witnessed a defamatory event witnessed only one.


Table 5.2 Reported stress responses of students by nature of incident experienced
Response
Students reporting stress response to:
Ethnoviolence or sexual harassment
[column 1]
Personal/group defamation
[column 2]
Witness to defamation
[column 3]
n
%
n
%
n
%
Kept thinking about it
80
40.6
83
49.7
37
40.2
Was angry
79
40.3
111
66.1
60
65.9
More nervous than usual
77
39.7
8
4.8
7
7.8
Became withdrawn
40
21.6
8
4.8
3
3.3
Felt afraid
42
21.6
4
2.4
3
3.3
Felt sad
na
na
48
29.1
53
38.8

Note: The number of students responding varies across symptoms and is smaller than the
totals for each category of victimization






Table 5.1. Frequency and percentage of defamatory events perceived as personally insulting because of respondents' race, ethnicity, religion, national origin,
sexual orientation, or gender.
Event
Reported seeing or hearing (n=215)
n
%
Jokes
141
65.6
Leaflets, posters
147
68.4
Graffiti
146
67.9
Articles, cartoons
120
55.8
Computer bulletin boards
70
32.6
Events seen or heard
One event only
95
44.2
Two
71
33.0
Three
35
16.3
Four or five events
14
6.5
Total
215
100.0

Note: The percentages refer to the number of students who experienced a defamatory event. The top most cell, for example, indicates that 65.6% were personally
insulted by jokes. The bottom half of the table is also based on the number of students who experienced a defamatory act. The top cell of that part indicates that
44.2% of the students who experienced a personal, defamatory act experienced only one event.


Table 5.3. Reported stress responses of victimized students
Response
Students reporting stress response to:
Ethnoviolence or sexual harassment
Group defamation
n
%
n
%
Kept thinking about it
80
40.6
83
49.7
Was angry
79
40.3
111
66.1
More nervous than usual
77
39.7
8
4.8
Became withdrawn
40
20.5
8
4.8
Felt afraid
42
21.6
4
2.4
Felt sad
na
na
48
29.1