Connect with us

Dharun Ravi And Liam Stacey: Online Bias Intimidation Explored

Published

on

On May 21, 2012 we learned that Dharun Ravi was found guilty by a court in New Jersey of invasion of privacy, hindering apprehension, witness tampering, and four counts of bias intimidation following the suicide of Tyler Clementi, a gay student he had secretly filmed kissing another man in his dorm room at Rutgers University. Ravi was sentenced to 30 days in prison, three years probation, 300 hours community service, a $10,000 fine, and counseling on cyberbullying and alternative lifestyles. While the story of Tyler Clementi and Dharun Ravi has been rehearsed several times in the media, and while we still have to hear Ravi make an apology that acknowledges his part in a series of events that resulted in a talent young man taking his own life, the question I wish to reflect upon here is, quite simply, what turned this popular and outgoing student into a convicted felon?

In the UK, we have several laws which protect citizens from harassment and have also recently seen such laws put into effect. On March 17, 2012, Bolton Wanderers soccer star, Fabrice Muamba suffered a cardiac arrest during a quarter-final match against rival soccer club Tottenham Hotspur. While doctors fought to save his life on the pitch, Swansea University student, Liam Stacey, posted a series of drunken tweets which were considered grossly offensive and racist. Realising his error (and this bears some remarkable similarities to Ravi’s apology that occurred moments before Clementi’s death), Stacey apologised profusely and claimed that his Twitter account had been hacked and that he had not posted the comments. Stacey eventually pleased guilty to a public order offence and was sentenced to 56 days in prison. Like Dharun Ravi, this was a young man with no history of hate, an educated and well-liked individual who had no reason to embark upon a campaign of racism against a soccer player who had come so close to death.

In trying to understand what turns these young men into criminals, it is important to understand the drivers that encouraged them to express, in public forums, sentiments that ultimately brought them to the attention of law enforcement.

In my research looking at the reasons why young people bully others, I have explored the issue of bias intimidation and looked at the factors that anger those we call “bullies.” Ultimately I found that issues of “difference,” judgements about the relative “value” of those who are different, and expectations or assumptions about those people are key drivers in someone becoming a “bully.” But, what do these three things have in common with Dharun Ravi and Liam Stacey? At face value both chose to abuse people who were different from themselves: Tyler Clementi was “gay” and Fabrice Muamba was “Black.” Perhaps Ravi and Stacey believed that the men they abused were easy targets, and their public humiliation was in some way less meaningful than if it had been a heterosexual room-mate or white soccer star. However what we do know is that both – despite having no overt homophobic or racist attitudes – engaged in behaviours that led them to prison.

So what happened to these two bright young men? In the first instance both were interacting online with others; they fed off those who responded positively and ignored or reacted angrily to those who responded negatively. Secondly, they were engaged in what is, in effect, a solitary activity, with few if any social cues to moderate their behavior. In Ravi’s case, Molly Wei was a willing confederate and thus did not provide Ravi with any physical cues (as far as we know) that would make him think twice. Much more important in understanding their behavior is both Ravi’s and Stacey’s mind set which governed the way they interacted with others online. It was, in essence, solipsistic. Solipsism is a philosophical idea that only one’s own mind truly exists, and that anything existing outside of one’s own mind is questionable at best, or non-existent. In other words, the only “truth” comes from one’s own perspective.

As we become increasingly reliant upon technology in our daily lives, are we too becoming the embodiment of solipsism, acknowledging only our own existence and devaluing or rendering irrelevant the beliefs, attitudes and existence of others? Is this the trap that Dharun Ravi and Liam Stacey fell into? Did they feed off the frenzy of positive reinforcement and ignore those who sought to moderate their behavior? In face-to-face interactions their behavior would have been criticised by their peers, but online we can always find like-minded individuals who are willing, often through the veil of anonymity or pseudonymity, to encourages us to more extremes of behavior. Similarly we should also consider, as social psychologists do, how much a person’s explicit attitudes correlate with his or her implicit ones? Are we more likely to express those implicit attitudes online because our interactions with others are disembodied and thus not “real” (see image above)?

Just how “real” was the hurt experienced by Tyler Clementi in Dharun Ravi’s eyes? Did he truly understand that something watched on a screen, or communicated via Twitter, was not another person’s reality? Did a drunken student, watching a soccer match on a TV really understand how his words could not only hurt the family of Fabrice Muamba but shock online and offline communities alike? Both Ravi and Stacey have lives to build after their sentences, alas Tyler Clementi does not. Fabrice Muamba is well on the road to recovery following his cardiac arrest. We may never fully understand why Ravi and Stacey did what they did and whether they their words and actions online are true reflections of their feelings towards others they perceive to be different. We do know that, despite its prevalence in our daily lives, we do not fully understand how human interact with technology.

 

Ian Rivers is Professor of Human Development at Brunel University, London. He is the author of ‘Homophobic Bullying: Research and Theoretical Perspectives’ (Oxford, 2011), and has researched issues of discrimination in LGBT communities, particularly among children and young people, for nearly two decades.

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Ex-National Security Official Is Already Warning About the Next ‘Trump Pandemic’

Published

on

By many accounts, during his first term, President Donald Trump botched the nation’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the latest hantavirus outbreak has some worrying the same thing could happen again if there is another Trump pandemic.

Miles Taylor, the Department of Homeland Security Chief of Staff during the first Trump administration is out with a stern warning, offering three reasons why Americans “won’t survive another Trump pandemic.”

Under President Trump, the U.S. response to COVID resulted in far higher infection rates and rates of death than many other high-income nations. The Guardian in 2021 reported that the U.S. could have avoided 40 percent of COVID deaths.

“Trump won’t just mishandle the next global health crisis,” he’s “prepared to weaponize it,” Taylor warns.

The “worst thing” about Trump’s “first turn at pandemic management isn’t just that Trump failed. Rather, it’s that he failed so spectacularly that he learned all the wrong lessons.”

“Trump broke the pandemic response system,” says Taylor. “And it remains broken.”

Trump threw out existing pandemic response plans, and instead convened “a hastily assembled White House ‘task force,’ made the HHS secretary chair it, then handed it to the vice president, then handed shadow control to his son-in-law.”

READ MORE: Taxpayers to Pick Up Massive Cost Overrun of Another Trump Project

Congressional investigations “found that the result was chaos and structural collapse, as agencies scrambled to reinvent pandemic response on the fly,” says Taylor, who relays one example from his time at DHS.

“I remember the phone calls at the time. My friend Olivia Troye, who was helping Vice President Mike Pence run the task force from the inside, would call with a tone of contained terror,” he writes.

“It’s so broken, Miles. You have no idea. He’s getting people killed,” she told him.

The interagency structure remains broken to this day, and the people who were “supposed to save our lives” have been purged from the government workforce.

Calling the situation “dire,” Taylor explains the bodycount.

“Last year, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced cuts of 10,000 employees on top of probationary firings that hit pandemic preparedness offices directly,” he writes. “The CDC lost roughly 2,400 staff — about 18 percent of its workforce. The FDA lost 3,500. The NIH lost 1,200. Entire offices that investigate disease outbreaks, manage infectious disease response, and collect surveillance data were then eliminated in a Friday-night massacre during the government shutdown.”

Going forward, those who are being replaced are political hires with less experience.

“So when the next pathogen emerges and the president asks for advice,” Taylor says, “the room probably won’t contain Tony Faucis and Deb Birxs, however imperfect they were. More likely, it will contain podcasters and quacks and vaccine skeptics — and maybe a few terrified careerists.”

It gets worse.

During the next pandemic, “Trump will be motivated by ‘revenge’ rather than ‘response,'” Taylor writes, noting that FEMA has become part of Trump’s “revenge machine.”

If you live in a blue state, you are three times less likely to receive federal disaster assistance than if you live in a red state. Citing analysis, Taylor says that out of 106 federal disaster relief requests, Republican-leaning states received 101 approvals, Democratic-leaning states only five.

Taylor warns that Trump “is always hunting for leverage. What better leverage to hold over a Democratic governor than the lives of his or her constituents?”

“Vaccines, antivirals, ventilators, federal medical teams, surge capacity — all of it can be released quickly… or held back indefinitely,” he writes. “You want help for your people? Play ball, he might say. Agree to join my mass-deportation plan or hand over your voter rolls.”

“The cost would be mass graves. And that would give Trump a lot of leverage, indeed.”

Which brings Taylor to his very specific warning to blue states: prepare for the next pandemic now, and prepare as if there will be no help from the federal government.

“Plan for it like the feds will be a foe,” he warns.

READ MORE: ‘Bracing for Higher Prices’: Economy Looks Bleak for Lower-Earning Americans Report Says

 

Image via Reuters 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Taxpayers to Pick Up Massive Cost Overrun of Another Trump Project

Published

on

President Donald Trump promised work to resurface the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, painting it American flag blue, would cost taxpayers $1.8 million in a no-bid contract to a company that hadn’t worked on a pool at one of the president’s golf courses.

That figure has ballooned more than seven times, to $13.1 million, The New York Times reports. The Interior Department, which awarded the contract to Atlantic Industrial Coatings, said $6.2 million of that was from doubling the size of the contract.

According to the Trump administration, the work is being done as a no-bid contract because not doing the work would cause “serious injury” to the federal government. The Times notes that the federal government has not specified what that injury would be, but President Trump reportedly wants the pool ready for the nation’s 250th birthday celebration on July 4.

The Times adds that Interior Department spokesperson Katie Martin said the higher price “reflects the effort necessary to expedite the timeline of completing the leak prevention coating project — more people, more materials, more equipment and longer hours ahead of our 250th.”

The Reflecting Pool cost increase mirrors another Trump project, his White House ballroom. Originally slated to cost $200 million, the price tag now appears to be over $400 million in donated funds plus one billion in taxpayer funds for security enhancements.

Critics blasted the Reflecting Pool cost increases.

“Trump is robbing American taxpayers blind,” wrote political commentator Tara Setmayer, the CEO of the Seneca Project.

Journalist Matthew Yglesias wrote: “No money for Medicaid.”

READ MORE: ‘Bracing for Higher Prices’: Economy Looks Bleak for Lower-Earning Americans Report Says

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

‘Empty’ Case Against Mark Kelly Shows Pentagon in ‘Disarray’: Expert

Published

on

The Pentagon is in “disarray,” and its efforts to punish U.S. Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) are a prime example, argues Ryan Burke, a professor of military and strategic studies, writing at Just Security.

Burke says that despite a federal judge ruling that the Defense Department could not punish Kelly, a retired Navy Captain, for his part in a video telling military service members to not obey illegal orders, Secretary Hegseth “reportedly ordered [former Secretary of the Navy John Phelan] to ignore the order and issue punishment to the retired Navy captain anyway.”

Calling the Pentagon’s case against Kelly “empty” and the video “a manufactured scandal built on hollow ground,” Burke writes, “the harder the Department of Defense tries to sculpt it into something meaningful, the faster it crumbles.”

The bottom line, Burke argues, is that the Pentagon “is trying to force a hypothetical into a legal reality,” and yet, “the fact remains: Senator Kelly – or any of the ‘Seditious Six’ – cannot incite disobedience to orders not given.”

READ MORE: ‘Fundamental Miscalculation’: Columnist Says Democrats Have ‘Little Chance’ in Midterms

The lawmakers who made the video are not part of the military’s chain of command, Burke writes. They “have no authoritative basis to instruct troops to do anything,” and therefore could not “cause mutiny.”

“As such, Hegseth’s threats to recall Kelly to active duty to face courts martial is baseless folly,” Burke argues.

Even if Kelly had encouraged disobedience from service members, “words alone are insufficient to prove causality.”

A central tenet of American democracy is that the legislative branch provides oversight, Burke explains. Civilian oversight is at the core of America’s “defense structure.” Lawmakers have every right and responsibility to speak about matters of interest, and the Pentagon cannot “insulate” itself and place itself above “scrutiny.”

“Instead of projecting strength, the Pentagon now projects insecurity and attempts to silence and punish anyone within its ranks who openly disagrees with leadership,” Burke writes.

The bottom line for Burke is, “after all the noise, we are left with the same conclusion: there is no there, there.”

READ MORE: ‘Bracing for Higher Prices’: Economy Looks Bleak for Lower-Earning Americans Report Says

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.