Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Student, staff, and parent perceptions of the reasons for ethnic conflict between Armenian and Latino students
(USC Thesis Other)
Student, staff, and parent perceptions of the reasons for ethnic conflict between Armenian and Latino students
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
STUDENT, STAFF, AND PARENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE REASONS FOR
ETHNIC CONFLICT BETWEEN ARMENIAN AND LATINO STUDENTS
by
Harry Sahag Bedevian
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2008
Copyright 2008 Harry Bedevian
ii
DEDICATION
Dedications are due to God for giving me the wisdom and strength to
persevere through the dissertation process, my wife, Hera, for her unwavering love
and support to finish my doctorate, the Bedevian and Mouradian families for their
encouragement, and the children and families whose lives were lost and traumatized
due to needless violence.
I also would like to dedicate this dissertation to loved ones who are not with
us any longer: My grandparents, Haroutioun and Victoria, and Hrant and
Dikranouhi, my uncles, Ara and George, my cousin, Vrej, my uncle’s wife, Ardemis,
and my wife’s grandmother, Ovsanna. May God bless their souls.
Additionally, I would like to dedicate this dissertation to the memory and
family of Raul Aguirre, who was a victim of the conflict between Armenian and
Latino youth in Glendale on May 5, 2000. May God bless his soul.
Finally, I dedicate this dissertation to my newborn daughter, Lara Grace.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I offer my gratitude to Drs. Melora Sundt and Ron Astor, from Rossier’s
School of Education department, and Dr. Michael Escalante, Superintendent of the
Glendale Unified School District, whose invaluable advice and encouragement have
made the completion of this dissertation possible. I also would like to thank the staff
at USC’s Dissertation Support Center: Dr. Kim Hirabayashi and Dr. Linda Fischer.
I would like to extend my gratitude to Principals Fundukian, Delling, and
Bishop of Glendale, North Hollywood, and Hollywood High Schools, who allowed
me access to their schools and believed in the contributions of my study.
I also would like to recognize the support of my classmates, Rocky Valles,
Joy Oaks, and Darryl Pearson, for encouraging me to complete my dissertation.
A final acknowledgment goes to Dr. Daniel Crecelius, former Chair and
Professor of History at California State University, Los Angeles, who has been an
outstanding mentor, role model, and friend.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
Abstract vi
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 3
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 11
Significance of the Study 12
Delimitations of the Study 12
Organization of the Remainder of the Dissertation 12
Chapter 2: Literature Review 13
Theoretical Framework 13
Economics 14
Ethnicity and Immigration 19
Hate Crimes and Gangs 30
Student Perceptions 35
School Climate 40
Summary 44
Chapter 3: Methodology 45
Population and Sample 46
Data Collection 48
Instrumentation 48
Data Analysis 49
Chapter 4: Analysis and Interpretation of Results 51
Research Question 1 51
Research Question 2 66
Research Question 3 76
Chapter 5: Discussion 87
Summary of the Findings 88
Discussion 88
Implications 92
Limitations of the Study 93
Recommendations for Future Research 93
Conclusion 94
References 95
v
Appendices
Appendix A 102
Appendix B 104
vi
ABSTRACT
In California’s public school districts, ethnic conflict between Armenian and
Latino students is a growing crisis that has resulted in increased tension and even in
death. This study investigated perceptions of individuals across the educational
spectrum regarding the causes of such conflict. The inclusion of parents in this study
was of particular importance, as they are often ignored or their thoughts considered
irrelevant.
The purpose of this qualitative study was to determine the perceptions of
students, staff, and parents in regard to the reasons for the conflict. To this end, the
study answered three research questions: (1) What are student, staff, and parent
perceptions of the reasons for recent incidents of violence between Armenian and
Latino students on or near their school campuses? (2) To what extent are the
explanations for ethnic violence the same within and between Armenian and Latino
groups? Do age, gender, immigration status, and other variables play a significant
role in making a difference in how respondents describe the conflict? (3) How can
the views of youth, school staff, and parents inform policy and help develop better
prevention practices?
A semi-structured interview was used to determine participant perceptions. A
number of significant findings emerged. First, participants perceived that both
Armenians and Latinos thought they were better than the other. Second, participants
believed that Latinos provoked Armenian males and females, spoke unfavorably
about them, and cursed in front of Armenian females. Third, participants felt that
vii
Armenians belittled Latinos, showed off, were racist, and were “financial
exhibitionists.” Fourth, participants suggested that parents needed to communicate
with their children about being tolerant and accepting of other cultures. Finally,
participants called for all students to engage in more culture-learning and
relationship-shaping activities as means to preventing ethnic conflict. They also felt
that schools needed to be more proactive in regard to conflict and to offer events that
promote cultural awareness. It was the researcher’s intention that findings from this
study would be used in the decision and policy-making meetings of school officials
and heads of family households to ensure the safety and harmony of our schools and
community.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
School conflict between Armenian and Latino students has existed for
decades, yet there is no research on this phenomenon. The overwhelming majority of
the literature on ethnic and racial conflicts examines crimes committed by and
against other ethnic groups (e.g., African Americans, Latinos, Asians). The earliest
report of conflict between these two ethnic groups was documented in the Los
Angeles Times (Shuster & Berger, 1994). The article began as follows:
Two Grant High School juniors were stabbed and a 16-year-old
student shot near the Van Nuys campus Tuesday, apparently because of
animosity between Armenian and Latino students that led to scattered after-
school fighting, school authorities said. Two boys of Armenian descent who
were stabbed several times as they walked to their cars after school were
being treated at Valley Medical Center, where they were listed in fair
condition. A third student, a Latino, who was wounded in the calf in a drive-
by shooting about 10 minutes after the stabbings, was in satisfactory
condition at the Medical Center of North Hollywood, police and school
authorities said. (p. 1)
Other conflicts between the two groups included a fight in the cafeteria in
1998, resulting in the suspension of 18 students (Barrientos, 2005), a lunchtime
brawl involving more than 200 Grant High School students, triggered by a fight
between a Latina and an Armenian girl in 1999 (Sauerwein, 1999), a fight involving
20 Armenian, Hispanic and Filipino students in front of the school’s physical
education building (Barrientos, 2005), and a several hundred-student melee in 2005
that made television headlines. NBC’s report of the story, “High School Locked
Down Following Fight,” stated that the Los Angeles Police Department had to be
2
called in to quell the fight and search for weapons (National Broadcasting Company,
2005).
While most of these conflicts led to recoverable physical injuries, none
resulted in death until May 5, 2005, ironically, a Mexican day of celebration. The
deadly incident occurred in front of Toll Middle School in Glendale, California,
directly across from Herbert Hoover High School. The following morning, a front-
page headline article read as follows. “In what police [Glendale Police Department]
say may have been a race-related murder, a 17-year old senior at Hoover High
School in Glendale was stabbed and clubbed to death Friday in front of the school”
(Foster & Fox, 2000, p. 1).
Raul Aguirre, a 17-year-old Latino senior, intervened in an after-school fight
between his Latino gang-member friend and two Armenian gang members, who had
become entangled in a deadly fight after exchanging gang signs. In the end, Raul lay
dead “after being stabbed twice in the heart, twice in the back and clubbed in the
head with a tire iron” (Gettleman & Condon, 2000, p. 1).
Although this tragedy may give the impression that school and youth violent
crimes are on the rise, they have generally been on the decline. According to Small
and Tetrick (2001), school-associated violent deaths are rare. They noted that school
killings occurred in fewer than 1% of the more than 1,350 children in the first half of
the 1998-1999 school year. While urban school children are more at risk for death
than are suburban children (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2005),
3
schools are still one of the safest locations for children, even safer than their homes
or neighborhoods.
If only fewer than 1% of children are murdered and schools are so safe, then
why did Raul Aguirre die? Either a real or false threat is the culprit for the ethnic
conflict and violence that are the focus of this study. Whether or not such threats
exist, they are enough to trigger feelings of hatred, animosity, anxiety, and
downtroddenness, feelings that could later lead to actions. Because these perceptions
exist, it is imperative that there be school intervention strategies to circumvent
negative feelings with positive ones, which should result in a decrease in violence
and ethnic conflict.
Background of the Problem
As background to this study, it is useful to include a brief presentation of
Armenian and Latino history, as well as population figures, as each pertains to their
presence in the United States. Additionally, this section includes information on
school violence in the U.S. and a history of ethnic conflict.
The history of Armenia and Armenians goes back 5,000 years. Armenians are
an ancient group of people who have lived in the Caucasus for centuries. Armenia’s
capital, Yerevan, is more than 2,800 years old, and its history was first recorded
during King Argishti’s reign in 782 B.C. (Hintz, 2004). Armenia has been the
battleground for Parthians, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Persians, Mongols, Turks,
and Russians (Kasbarian, 1998). It was the first nation to adopt Christianity as a state
religion in 301 A.D. It also created its alphabet consisting of 36 letters in 406 A.D.,
4
fought its first major religious battle defending its Christian religion against the
pressing Zoroastrian Persians in 451 A.D., survived the Armenian Genocide of 1.5
million people by the Ottoman Turks during World War I, and declared
independence from the former Soviet Union in 1991 (Dhilawala, 1997; Hintz, 2004;
Kasbarian, 1997).
Armenian migration to California can be traced back to the 1800s, but it was
not until the late 20
th
century that immigration exploded. In the 1980s, Soviet Union
leader Mikhail Gorbachev, through his “Glasnost” and “Perestroika” social policies
(which, in Russian, equate to “openness” and “restructuring,” respectively), relaxed
the strict rules concerning emigration from the U.S.S.R., “opening the floodgates of
humanity who anxiously exited by the millions” (Zaionchkovskaya, 1996, pp. 33-
34).
Latinos, specifically Mexicans, were the original inhabitants of what is today
the Southwest region of the U.S. Beginning with the Aztecs in the 15
th
century and
Mayans in the 16
th
century, the territory of Mexico was composed of indigenous
populations. Mexico was able to successfully expel its Spanish oppressors, but was
defeated by the U.S. during the 1830s in the Mexican War and was forced to cede its
territory in the 1840s. Mexicans, as well as other Central and South American
groups, continued living in what is known today as Southern California.
According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000a), in the U.S., Armenian is
the 20
th
most frequently spoken language at home for individuals 5 years old and
over. Armenian speakers increased from 149,694 in 1990 to 202,708 in 2000, while
5
Spanish has remained the most frequently spoken language at home for individuals
five years old and over. Latino speakers increased from 17,339,172 in 1990 to
28,101,052 in 2000.
When broken down by state, California has the most Armenian speakers,
totaling 155,237 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000a). According to the California
Department of Finance (1995), “California was by far the most popular amongst
Armenian immigrants, as 93 percent of the total number of immigrants from
Armenia to the United States intended to reside in California” (p. 11). Of the 6,287
Armenian immigrants who came to the U.S. in 1993, 5,938 settled in California
(California Department of Finance, 1995). Of these, there was nearly an equal
number of males (2,983), who had a median age of 20 and females (2,955), who had
a median age of 23. Broken down into ZIP codes, the five most frequent for intended
residence for Armenians are 91205 (Glendale), 90027 (Los Angeles: Hollywood),
90028 (Los Angeles: Hollywood), 90029 (Los Angeles: Hollywood), and 90038
(Los Angeles: West Hollywood).
Alongside Iranian immigrants, the flow of legal Armenian immigrants into
California is the most concentrated (California Department of Finance, 1995).
Armenian is the seventh most spoken language in California and the sixth most
spoken common language in Los Angeles County. Additionally, Los Angeles
County is home to more than two-thirds (68%) of all the Armenian speakers in the
U.S. (U.S. English, Inc., 2005).
6
Crime statistics for Glendale Armenians are relatively positive. According to
the U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000b), Glendale’s population was 194,973, of which
53,840 were Armenian (approximately 30%). Although Armenians comprised one-
third of Glendale’s population, they only committed 17% of its crime (Altounian,
2006). This is a good figure, considering that other ethnicities in Glendale comprised
a similar percentage of the city’s population, but committed higher rates of crime.
Armenian culture has had centuries of time to evolve, hone, and enrich itself
into a vastly sophisticated set of beliefs, institutions, and thoughts. Armenia’s
population has a literacy rate of 99% (Hintz, 2004), making it one of the most highly
educated nations in the world. Moreover, industriousness and success have traveled
with Armenians wherever they have gone. Whether it be Pulitzer Prize-winning
author William Saroyan, world chess champion Gary Kasparov, former California
governor George Deukmejian, pop singer Cher, General Nutrition Center (GNC)
health store creator David Shakarian, surrealist Arshile Gorky, “Chipmunks” cartoon
creator Ross Baghdasarian, tennis superstar Andre Agassi, or Las Vegas multi-
billionaire Kirk Kerkorian, Armenians have left a permanent mark in the world
(Dhilawala, 1997; Hintz, 2004; Kasbarian, 1998).
Other cultural aspects of Armenian are also important to consider. The
Armenian language is a distinct branch of the Indo-European tree of languages. It
was developed by Mesrob Mashdots, a monk and scholar, in 406 A.D. (Dhilawala,
1997). After the invention of the Armenian alphabet, the first text to have been
translated to Armenian was the Holy Bible. Having been the first nation state to
7
adopt Christianity in 301 A.D. is evidence of the strength of Armenians’
commitment to Christianity (Kasbarian, 1998).
School Violence in the United States
Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, and Lozano (2004) defined violence as the
“intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself,
another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high
likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or
deprivation” (p. 5). They further stated that “violence undermines communities by
increasing the cost of health care, reducing productivity, decreasing property values,
and disrupting social services” (p. 25). In regard to violence, teenagers are 2.5 times
more likely than are adults to be victims of violence in U.S. schools (Stevens, Lynn,
& Glass, 2001). Moreover, in 2001, 15 people between the ages of 10 to 24, were
murdered, on average, and 85% of them were males (National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control, 2005).
Researchers have yet to come to a consensus on the definition of “school
violence.” One well-used definition states that it is a “multifaceted construct that
involves both criminal acts and aggression in schools, which inhibit development
and learning, as well as harm the school’s climate” (Furlong & Morrison, 2000, p. 1).
It is difficult to characterize school violence because it consists of many different
components, including developmental correlates of delinquent behavior, crime on
school campuses, victimization experiences, school disciplinary practices, weapon
possession at school, use of controlled substances at school, influence of delinquent
8
gangs on schools, conflict resolution approaches, and zero tolerance (Furlong &
Morrison, 2000).
Even with the disturbing homicide statistics presented above, school
violence, as noted above, has been on the decline. The total numbers of violent
deaths (homicide, suicide, legal intervention or unintentional firearm-related death)
are down, from 34 homicides during 1997-1998 to 17 during 2001-2002, and 6
suicides during 1997-1998, down to 5 during 2001-2002 (Small & Tetrick, 2001).
Serious violent victimization (rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault)
are down, from 144 per 1,000 students in 1992, to 73 per 1,000 students in 2003, and
serious violent crimes (rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple
assault) are down, from 48 per 1,000 students in 1992 to 43 per 1,000 students in
1998 (Small & Tetrick, 2001). Theft is down, from 95 per 1,000 students in 1992, to
58 per 1,000 in 1998. Additionally, carrying of weapons is down, from 12-7% from
1993 to 1999, and the percentage of students involved in fights are down, from 16-
14%, during the same years (Small & Tetrick, 2001), with steeper declines for girls
than for boys (Brener, Simon, Krug, & Lowry, 1999). Brener et al. (1999) stated,
“Overall, the Public Health Service goal of reducing the incidence of weapon
carrying among adolescents by 20% from the 1991 baseline has been met . . .
however, other violence-related national health objectives for the year 2000 have not
been met” (p. 445).
9
History of Ethnic Conflict
Early ethnic conflict in the U.S. began with the Dutch and English in the
1680s. “The Dutch-English friction centered on economic and political issues as the
English sought to assert their control over the city after their initial conquest of New
Amsterdam in 1664 and again after the city returned to their mastery in 1674”
(Bayor, 1993, p. 15). This historical account also contains a description of conflict
between other groups throughout the centuries: Irish Catholics clashing with White,
native-born Protestants in the 1820s; Whites and the Irish clashing with Blacks in the
1830s; Whites clashing with Blacks and abolitionists in a riot of 1834; the Irish
clashing with Blacks in a riot of 1863; Whites clashing with the Chinese in the late
1870s; Whites clashing with Italians, Cubans and Spanish immigrants in Florida in
the early 20
th
century; Irish and native-born Whites clashing with Jews in the 1930s;
native-born Americans clashing with Germans and Italians during the 1930s and
1940s; Jews clashing with Blacks in the late 1960s; and Blacks clashing with
Hispanics in the first of two riots in the 1960s and then in 1968 (Bayor, 1993).
The ethnic background of the participants in these intergroup conflicts is not
as important as the reasons for their fighting with one another. The common
denominator was that they felt threatened. “Threat,” according to Bayor (1993), is “a
feeling, based on realistic or unrealistic criteria that one’s own group is under attack
in regard to its interests or values” (p. 15). Moreover, “conflicts often develop in a
step-by-step fashion as competitive tensions slowly increase. They can also emerge,
however, with lightning speed” (p. 15). This “competitive tension” is experienced as
10
anguish when individuals fear unemployment, loss of political power or
neighborhood control, or changes in foreign policy that go against their beliefs.
The large immigration of the Irish, Jews, and Hispanics into the U.S. or the
shifting population of Blacks into non-Black neighborhoods raises feelings such as
those felt by the Dutch over English economic control over the Dutch. Whether
tensions lie between the Dutch and English in the 1680s or Armenians and Latinos in
the late 20
th
and early 21
st
centuries, conflict between ethnic groups is seen
throughout history.
There are a number of definitions of ethnic group and ethnicity. St. Clair
(1957) noted that anthropologists define “ethnic group” as “a collection of families
which share a distinctive culture, which has a distinctive ethos reflected in the
institutional structure, the rites of passage, song, dance, legend, and myth” (p. 155).
Singleton (1977) defined ethnicity as “a potentially powerful conceptual base for
analyzing questions of social inequality, group differences, and political conflict in
modern societies and their educational systems” and noted that ethnicity “involves a
past-oriented group identification emphasizing origins” (p. 329). St. Clair (1957)
explained that these groups are “ethnocentric” and “symbolize their unity with a
myth of descent from a common ancestor and reinforce it with ceremonies and
rituals” (p. 155). In keeping with this, Armenians’ beginnings are sometimes said to
have “mythically” originated from Noah’s son, Japheth, and Hayk, the great
Armenian warrior who fought and defeated the mighty Pel, in a David and Goliath
11
type battle, in the highlands and plateaus of ancient Armenia, located in the Caucasus
(Kasbarian, 1998).
Aronson (1976) addressed the reasons for interethnic conflict, stating,
“interethnic competition and accommodation are dependent upon respective group
patterns of economic survival as well as upon the socio-political processes by which
inequality and social stratification are maintained” (p. 13). Thus, group conflict
emerges out of socio-economic class differences and, if there is a perceived threat,
real or imagined, anxiety is aroused and can lead to the potential for violence.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of the study was to gain an understanding of ethnic school
violence, particularly that of Armenian and Latino students, from the perspective of
students, staff, and parents. Specifically, this study addressed three research
questions:
1. What are student, staff, and parent perceptions of the reasons for recent
incidents of violence between Armenian and Latino students on or near their school
campuses?
2. To what extent are the explanations for ethnic violence the same within
and between Armenian and Latino groups? Do age, gender, immigration status, and
other variables play a significant role in making a difference in how respondents
describe the conflict?
3. How can the views of youth, school staff, and parents inform policy and
help develop better prevention practices?
12
Significance of the Study
This study is significant for a variety of reasons. It is most significant because
a young man, Raul Aguirre, died as a result of conflict between Armenian and Latino
youth. It is remarkable that Armenian and Latino confrontations have not resulted in
more deaths. This study is also significant because, as stated above, there is no
research on the conflict between Armenian and Latino students. As such, this is the
first study that attempts to understand the tensions between these ethnic groups.
Delimitations of the Study
The study is delimited to Armenian and Latino students who have had and
continue to have conflicts at secondary public schools in Southern California. The
three schools included Glendale High School, North Hollywood High School, and
Hollywood High School and the research took place during the spring semester of
2007.
Organization of the Remainder of the Dissertation
The chapter presented an introduction to the dissertation, including a general
understanding of the relevant issues. Chapter 2 provides a review of the relevant
literature, including several major behavioral and social theories and how these apply
to Armenian/Latino relations. Chapter 3 includes a description of the methodology
used to conduct the study. Chapter 4 presents the results of the analyses, while
Chapter 5, which concludes the dissertation, contains a summary, discussion
conclusion, and recommendations.
13
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter contains the literature relevant to violence between Armenian
and Latino youth. The chapter begins with the theoretical frameworks that guided the
study, followed by the literature on economics, ethnicity and immigration, hate
crimes and gangs, student perceptions, and school climate, all as related to ethnic
conflict. The chapter concludes with a summary.
Theoretical Framework
Theories to explain the formation of gang structures and, more specifically,
group conflict, are based in three themes: interest, identity, and social organization.
Bakalian (1993) stated that the arrival of Armenian immigrants to Los Angeles and
their efforts to organize have “increased their visibility and alerted other ethnic
groups competing for scarce resources . . . they are a group to be reckoned with” (p.
21). In this regard, Gould (1999) stated that one reason for conflict is groups
competing for the same limited resources or a group intruding upon another group
due to special interests. Another reason, according to Gould, that group conflict
occurs is that people see individuals as part of a group and not as independently
thinking human beings. For example, rather than seeing an 18-year-old, full-time
college student and part-time employee at a bank, who is a brother to a younger
sister and member of the youth group at a church, an Armenian (or any other)
adolescent might simply view that individual as a “Mexican.”
14
Social organization, Gould’s (1999) third reason for group conflict, concerns
relationships and the binding of people into groups. Newly arrived students to Israel
from the former Soviet Union developed a gang structure because they did not have
any bonds with anyone in Israel. In this regard, Gould noted that “individuals benefit
from group life in part because membership offers protection against predation” (p.
359).
The “Armenian Power” gang or AP, as they are known, is an example of a
gang that was formed for protective reasons. “The members of Armenian Power are
guardians of young Armenian Americans, who have often come under attack from
older, larger gangs” (Krikorian, 1997, p. 1). Krikorian cited a 19-year-old,
Armenian-born gang member, who stated, “Most of the fights I got into, I got into
for Armenians that other guys were picking on” (p. 1).
In summary, three themes are relevant to group conflict. The first theme is
that competition increases as groups strive to gain more resources, the second is that
people are viewed as a collective and not individuals, and the third is that individuals
join groups for protective reasons.
Economics
Kramer (2000) stated that the U.S. political environment has a direct impact
on the economic situation that can cause youth violence. Specifically, Kramer
blamed capitalism and the free market economy for the “reduction of societal
cooperation and collective welfare” (p. 130). In keeping with this, Cullen (1994)
stated, “America has higher rates of serious crime . . . because it is a less supportive
15
society” (p. 531), and Messner and Rosenfeld (as cited in Kramer, 2000) argued that
“the core values of the American Dream (achievement, individualism, universalism,
monetary success) stimulate criminal motivations while promoting weak norms to
guide the choices of means to achieve cultural goals” (p. 130).
The extreme change from communism to capitalism was a socio-behavioral
shock to Armenians from the former Soviet Union. Millions of people were forced to
go from an “all for one and one for all” mentality to “every man for himself.” This
point was emphasized by Kimble (as cited in Bakalian, 1993) when he stated that
Armenian immigrants are psychologically unprepared for understanding the concepts
of private property and the standard of living in the U.S.
Pfeiffer (2000), from the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony,
was hired by the European Union to study youth violence and crime and how they
have changed in ten European nations over the past two decades. Pfieffer found that
youth violence included robbery, bodily harm, and deliberate killings; criminals are
getting younger; and 25% of violent crimes were being committed by youth between
the ages of 13 and 18. Pfieffer emphasized that, if young people were well integrated
into society, they would commit fewer offenses. Moreover, the more difficult it is for
young people to find a job, the more likely it is that they will resort to crime to get
what they see everyone else’s being able to afford. It is evident that an investment in
youth must be made to provide them with the tools to be self-supporting, confident,
and productive members of society once they become adults.
16
Economic issues have spurred the global migration of people throughout the
world, as was the case for Armenians who immigrated to America in the late 1880s.
Most of these immigrants were “artisans and laborers seeking economic
opportunities” (Bakalian, 1993, p. 9). In regard to other immigrants, Iredale and Fox
(1997) stated that 90% of new arrivals to Australia go to Sydney for what they
perceive as better job opportunities. This was the same reason for immigration to the
U.S. by citizens of the Dominican Republic (Mateu-Gelabert, 2002). There is
tremendous pressure on the governments of industrialized nations to absorb these
massive influxes of poor immigrants, while preparing them to be industrious
contributors to their nation’s economy.
Unfortunately, such integration and advancement are not always the case. In
the U.S., families and children are more likely to remain poor due to the widening
gap between the rich and poor. Additionally, immigrants face entrapment in long-
term unemployment and little federal assistance to boost them out of their economic
position (Kramer, 2000).
Fortunately, Armenians are in a better position. Armenians have always
believed in education as a means for future success and have a 98.6% literacy rate
(Central Intelligence Agency, 2006). In Bakalian’s (1993) sample of Armenians
from New York and New Jersey, which she feels is representative of all Armenian-
Americans, almost 25% had earned a four-year university degree or higher. Statistics
from the U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000b) indicate an even greater number of
educated Armenians. Specifically, 76% of 25-year-olds of Armenian descent had
17
graduated with a high school diploma or higher, with 28.6% graduating with a
bachelor’s degree and 11% graduating with a master’s degree.
As noted above, the focus on money in the U.S. has consequences for its
youth. Messner and Rosenfeld (as cited in Kramer, 2000) noted the devaluation of
families and schools, considered “non-economic institutions,” to the “forceful
accommodation of economic considerations” (p. 131). This economic pressure goes
against the socialization process to create aggressive, selfish, and economically
driven individuals, instead of caring and generous ones. Iredale and Fox (1997)
stated, “Individuals must be valued more broadly than just in terms of their possible
economic contribution” (p. 667). This becomes difficult to do in a society that
focuses on economic outcomes.
According to Okazawa-Rey and Wong (1997), “competition for resources
based on real and perceived scarcity of jobs, education, and insider status . . . fuel the
conflicts and often prevent alliance-building efforts” (p. 7). Rodriguez (1994), who
studied tensions between Blacks and Latinos in South Central Los Angeles, also
believes that real or perceived threat leads to ethnic conflict. He noted that Black
college and university administrators feel threatened by the Hispanic Association of
Colleges and Universities due to the potential for competition for scarce resources.
While relations have improved with the appointment of minorities in offices of
power such as the Detroit City Hall and the Detroit School Board (Rodriguez, 1994),
tensions resulted from the hiring of an African American instead of a Latina at the
18
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, which was experienced as a “threat” by Latinos
(Rodriguez, 1994).
Rodriguez (1994) stated that there is a huge gap in the knowledge of Blacks
about the Chicano Movement, specifically how Latinos waged and won battles
against more dominant and oppressive “insider” groups. To some Blacks, it may
seem that Latinos are taking a free ride that was hard won by Blacks.
If groups worked together, it would not only lessen conflict, but also result in
positive change. Gil Gonzalez, who has studied the history of discrimination against
Mexican Americans, at the University of California, Irvine (as cited in Rodriguez,
1994), stated, “It is absolutely necessary to have an alliance [between Blacks and
Latinos] if there’s ever going to be change” (p. 5). Rodriguez noted how the joining
of forces of Black and Latino organizations (League of United Latin American
Citizens, 100 Black Men of Orange County, Mexican American Legal Defense and
Education Fund, and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)
led to the winning vote against California’s Proposition 187, which would have led
to the retracting of all publicly funded services to non-citizens.
Because Armenians are generally legal citizens, they do not usually partake
in or support these types of rallies. Rather, they focus on initiatives to support pro-
Armenia legislation, Armenian Genocide recognition, and other nation and
community building efforts. Major lobbying, social, and cultural organizations
include the Armenian National Committee of America, Armenian Assembly of
America, Armenian General Benevolent Union, and Armenian Relief Society.
19
In summary, the capitalist system leads to little cooperation or support among
individuals, as well as an increase in crime, especially among jobless youth. Because
the gap between the rich and poor has increased, even more focus is being placed on
economic issues, forcing groups to compete with one another, resulting in conflict.
Ethnicity and Immigration
Simpson and Yinger (as cited in Bakalian, 1993) noted that Armenian
immigrants were perceived as being “too ambitious and with a crafty kind of self-
interested intelligence” (p. 101). As a result, they suffered the same fate as did other
ethnic groups; they were excluded from joining clubs or purchasing land. They were
also degraded by being called “Turks” and were stereotyped in Fresno in the 1920s
as criminals, leeches of government assistance, and liars (Simpson & Yinger, 1985,
as cited in Bakalian, 1993).
In a quantitative study involving 1,108 telephone interviews, Jaret and
Reitzes (1999) determined the significance of identity among different groups. They
noted that identity theory has been affected by increases in immigration, mixed
marriages, and more noticeable conflict. Jaret and Reitzes also stated that intergroup
competition was the cause of increased or intense identities. This assumption is
particularly applicable to Los Angeles, given skyrocketing immigration (legal and
illegal) and the strain placed on scarce resources. The researchers also found that
Blacks place more significance on ethnic-racial identity than do Whites, but Whites
develop their own identity when they feel they are “in the minority.” These findings
may pertain to Armenians, given their categorization as “Whites.” This increase in
20
identity was also a result of increased contact and interaction with other racial-ethnic
groups, as competition theory suggests.
Phinney, Ferguson, and Tate (1997) studied a sample of 547 eighth- and
eleventh-grade adolescents of Black, Latino, and Asian descent, hoping to
understand the identity-related reasons for intergroup attitudes among these ethnic
groups. Because social identity theory suggests people have a positive bias toward
their own group, the researchers had assumed that Blacks, Latinos, and Asians would
praise their own groups and deflate others. However, the results of Likert-scaled
assessments revealed that ethnic groups who had positive ratings of their own group
held positive attitudes towards other groups, with Blacks having the most positive
attitudes towards other groups, followed by Latinos and then Asians. Phinney et al.,
however, did not indicate where Whites fell on this scale. The authors concluded that
children’s contact with other racial-ethnic grouped children at a young age can result
in positive intergroup attitudes of those racial-ethnic groups when older.
Other studies looked at social conflict between Blacks and Koreans in Los
Angeles. While the studies of Okazawa-Rey and Wong (1997) and Park (1996) are
similar, Park took an anthropological perspective. Both sets of authors agreed,
however, that economics lay at the base of potential conflict. Park found that Blacks
viewed Korean shop owners through a discriminatory eye and felt that they were no
different from “White oppressors.” Through their contact with Koreans, Blacks
found them to be unfriendly, uncommunicative, lacking patience, and unwilling to
hire Black employees. Park explained that ethnic and social differences are the cause
21
of these unfair interpretations by Blacks. For example, through interviews with
Korean shop owners, Park learned that they typically work “7 days a week and often
16 hours a day—112 hours per week” (p. 497). As a result, shop owners are often too
exhausted to be cordial with or smile at their customers. Korean women especially
dare not to smile at strangers, lest they be labeled prostitutes by the Korean
community. Further, so that costs remain low and profits high, Korean shop owners
rely on the labor of family members, who do not need to be compensated. The
inability of Korean shop owners to communicate, due to their lack of English
language skills, conveys the message to Blacks that Koreans do not care about them
and simply want their money.
Just as Blacks may misunderstand Koreans, Koreans may not have an
understanding of Blacks. Okazawa-Rey and Wong (1997) found that what Koreans
know of the lives of Blacks—lives filled with crime, drugs, unemployment, and
gangs—they have learned on television or through Black U.S. soldiers stationed in
South Korea. This skewed perception of Blacks by Koreans was also found by Park
(1996), who noted that Korean believe that Blacks steal, do not work, and do not
care about their children’s education.
Okazawa-Rey and Wong (1997) remind us that all people have been
oppressed at one time or another, whether it be the genocide of Native Americans,
the enslavement of Africans, or the colonization of Mexicans. Armenian history is
plagued by war, but nothing compares to the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians by
the Ottoman Turks. In this regard, the researchers noted that ethnic conflict revolves
22
around “insider” and “outsider” groups. In the U.S., Whites were always the
“insider” and Blacks the “outsider.” Currently, tensions exist among Blacks, Asians,
and Latinos, who are all striving not to be the “outsider” group.
Samovar and Porter (1988) stated, “Language is one of the most important
differences . . . and one of the greatest barriers” between ethnic groups (p. 32). The
Armenian language was created by Mesrob Mashdots in 406 A.D., at a time when
Armenians were using Greek, Persian, and Syriac as their method of communication.
The alphabet had a profound impact; it solidified the nation, strengthened their
Christian faith, and set aside Armenians from the mosaic of people in the region as a
linguistically independent nation. According to Bakalian (1993), language “played a
vital role in shaping the historical destiny of [the Armenian] people” (p. 252).
Ferdman (1990) emphasized that the most significant element of cultural identity is
language. Williams (1977) noted that language contains the signs with which people
communicate.
Shrake and Rhee (2004) sought to determine whether the intensity of ethnic
Korean identity and attitudes (positive or negative) toward other ethnic groups
resulted in problem behaviors among Korean adolescents. The researchers sampled
217 Korean American students attending various high schools in Los Angeles and
found that adolescents with high levels of Korean ethnic identity and positive
attitudes toward other ethnic people had fewer problem behaviors. The development
of strong ethnic identity is also found in the Armenian community. Families, private
Armenian day schools, community organizations, and the Armenian Church place
23
tremendous pressure on youth to retain the centuries-old language, culture, religion,
and history of the Armenian people so as to combat the pressures of assimilation
(Bakalian, 1993).
Chae (as cited in Shrake & Rhee, 2004) found that the wider the acculturation
gap between parents and children, the greater the likelihood that children will abuse
drugs and befriend delinquents. This is in keeping with McNulty and Bellair’s (2003)
statement that, due to high levels of social/familial bonding by Asian students, their
participation in gangs is very low, i.e., they generally do not befriend delinquents.
Unfortunately, this is not the case with Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans. It
is interesting to note that Shrake and Rhee found that females, due to their positive
attitudes toward other groups, showed less racial discrimination than did males.
With the flooding of immigrants into the U.S. comes the flooding of children
into its educational systems. In some Glendale Unified School District schools, for
example, Armenian students comprise over 50% of the total student population.
Schwartz and Gershberg (2001) stated, “Put simply, immigrants might crowd out the
native born in competition for educational resources or opportunities” (p. 125). Here
again, we see the recurring theme of competition for scarce resources, which is an
explanation for the tension between ethnic groups.
Mateu-Gelabert (2002) conducted a longitudinal and ethnographic study of
adolescent violence by tracking the development of 25 New York City students from
seventh to ninth grade. Not only did he interview students and parents, he also
visited their families in the Dominican Republic for ten days. In total, he conducted
24
2,867 interviews and had 593 sets of field notes. He found that the immigration of
children, followed by their mothers arriving later, created a “cultural distance” or
“disconnect” between adolescents and adults, which resulted in the placement of
adolescents in “vulnerable positions, creating an opening for gangs” (p. 6).
This “vulnerability” also was mentioned by Tartakovsky and Mirsky (2001)
in their study of 20 girls and boys from the former Soviet Union who were part of “a
special education program for youth run by the Israeli Ministry of Education (Naale
program, which is a Hebrew acronym for adolescents immigrating prior to their
parents)” (p. 248). These students arrived feeling “alienated,” “isolated,” and
“vulnerable” (p. 253) leading them to “act out the combination of their needs for
security, their dependency wishes, and their aggressive drives in the crude form of a
gang structure” (p. 256). Similarly, Mateu-Gelabert (2002) described the joining of a
gang of adolescents as providing a “safety network.”
In its infancy, Armenian immigration into the U.S. followed a similar pattern.
For a short period, it was typical for single or married Armenian men to arrive in the
U.S. to work and save money to send back home or to arrange for their families to
come to the U.S. (Bakalian, 1993). Later immigration consisted of whole families
arriving together and, as such, there was no disconnect between family members and
no gap resulting in the vulnerability of the youth. Nevertheless, there is conflict
between groups.
Group conflict may be attributed to the culture of a people. Bakalian (1993)
speaks of “ethnogenesis” when describing the conflicts between different waves of
25
immigration. Ethnogenesis is “the process whereby an aggregate of immigrants from
the same national or regional origin acquire self-consciousness as a collectivity and
create an ethnic group out of their shared American experience” (p. 48). Specifically,
there is a clash between the culture that immigrants bring with them and the culture
of the country into which they arrive.
Duncan (1939) suggested four causes of cultural conflict: “changes in the
character of a culture; changes in population due to migration, maturation, and social
climbing; social changes spawned from utilizing specific culture traits; and culture
inertia” (p. 457). Language, food, clothing, religion, and occupation are also
culturally related variables that can cause conflict.
Social control is assumed to reduce the levels of individual and group
delinquencies and conflicts. Meier (1982) attributed the popularity of social control
theory among sociologists as a means to explain “how highly differentiated, complex
social groups continue to socially organize themselves” (p. 36). He related the
weakening of social control over society to the forces of immigration, urbanization,
and women’s liberation. Pound (1942) argued that social control is governed by law
instead of family and religion, what he considered traditional influences. One can see
the evidence of Pound’s statement in the ever-growing passage of tougher laws, the
hiring of more police officers, and the boost in the construction of prisons, which are
seen as a response to a society gone astray.
In most Armenian households, family and religion still reign. Bakalian
(1993) described the often-vigilant stance that Armenian parents take to teach their
26
children “not to discredit the family” or engage in activities that would “bring shame
(amot in Armenian) to the family name” (p. 371). She also noted that Armenian
families raise their children with “discipline, ‘strictness,’ and obedience to parental
authority” (p. 370). In regard to the Armenian Church, Bakalian stated that “the
Armenian Apostolic church has . . . been able to maintain firm[er] boundaries of
inclusion and exclusion” and “adherents of the Armenian Apostolic church maintain
higher levels of traditional ethnic behavior and attitudes [than do members of the
Armenian Protestant Church and the Armenian Catholic Church]” (p. 415). These
factors make Armenians less vulnerable to the powerful forces of assimilation.
The social bond theory concerns an individual’s bond to family, school and
community and has four elements: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief
(De Li, 1999). These absence of these elements is “important in explaining juvenile
delinquency and youth status attainment” (p. 306). Close to 80% of Bakalian’s
(1993) sample agreed that, overall, family needs take priority over the needs of
individual members. Thus, it is unusual to see Armenian youth not act in a way that
disregards social bonds. In a qualitative study, De Li examined the impact of formal
sanctions (punishment) and informal social control (increased delinquency after
being labeled a “criminal”) on delinquency. De Li interviewed 411 London boys,
from age 8 until they reached the age of 32 and found that it was better to deter
adolescent delinquency with strong social bonds to family, school, and community
(informal) than with punishment (formal).
27
Vazsonyi and Pickering (2003) proposed social control theory as an
explanation for adolescent attraction to gangs, stating, “youth who are weakly
attached to society’s institutions such as the family or school are more likely to
deviate from norms and to engage in norm-violating conduct” (p. 116). They also
asserted that, “because these youth never learned to conform to rules and norms
during their early socialization experiences, they are free to deviate” (p. 116). In this
regard, the generational gap created by immigration increases the risk of joining
gangs (Mateu-Gelabert, 2002).
Although it may sound as if immigrant youth rush into gangs, this is not the
case. In fact, “very recent immigrants are less likely to become involved in
delinquency because they have yet to be exposed to the risk factors associated with
American inner-city areas” (Mateu-Gelabert, 2002, p. 4). Vazsonyi and Pickering
(2003) noted that the level of violence in the U.S. is very high. Homicide of children
ages 15 and under is five times higher and use of guns is 16 times higher in the U.S.
than in 15 Western European countries combined.
Vazsonyi and Pickering (2003) studied various developmental domains and
their effect on adolescent violence in ethnic groups in a sample of 809 students
attending high schools in the southeast region of the U.S., the majority of whom
lived with both of their biological parents and came from middle and upper-middle
class, well educated families. They found family and school to be the two most
predictive factors of serious and violent offending. These findings were in keeping
with those of Matsueda and Heimer (1987) and Liska and Reed (1985), who
28
concluded that broken homes resulted in decreased parental supervision, which later
led to an increase in delinquency.
Liska and Reed (1985), who examined ties to conventional institutions and
their impact on juvenile delinquency found that “parents . . . are the major
institutional source of delinquency control” (p. 558), while Vazsonyi and Pickering
(2003) stated that, with respect to family, “a lack of emotional closeness,
involvement, or support . . . inconsistent or lax discipline and supervision or
monitoring are the most predictive of delinquency and later criminality” (p. 117). In
keeping with this, Cullen (as cited in Kramer, 2000), stated “the more support a
family provides, the less likely it is that a person will engage in crime” (p. 538). This
is an aspect of the theory of differential association, which posits that “parental
attachment is important because it insulates adolescents from a delinquent-peer
environment” (Liska & Reed, 1985, p. 548). Finally, Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber
(1986), who studied factors relating to juvenile problems and delinquency, found that
a lack of parental support increases delinquent behavior and that “greater educational
commitment, greater educational aspirations, spending more time on homework,
getting better grades, and simply greater school involvement promote socially
conforming behaviors” (p. 117).
Stewart (2003) conducted a quantitative study of 10,578 students from 538
high schools, using data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of
school-level characteristics and their influence on behaviors, and noted that
conformity may only be achieved “through the strength of one’s social bonds to
29
various traditional institutions, such as the family and school” (p. 577). To counter
the lax supervision of adolescents due to their parents’ working, Mateu-Gelabert
(2002) recommended that neighborhoods create a network of adults to supervise
large groups of adolescents. In actuality, according to Mateu-Gelabert, this
recommendation would be difficult to achieve. In his study of Dominican Republic
families living in the U.S., he found that families did not have a consistent network
of adults supervising their children when they were at work. Moreover, “once they
are in the U.S., parents often see neighbors as a potential threat to the safety of their
children” (p. 24).
For Armenians, it is not biological age that is the issue. Rather, their
immigration status has created a generational cleavage between the two groups.
Kimble (as cited in Bakalian, 1993) noted that Soviet Armenian immigrants to Los
Angeles compare themselves to the older generations of established and wealthy
Armenians and expect to amass the same level of success. When they do not, both
youth and adults may resort to deviant activities.
Immigration affects adults and adolescents differently. Adults, having come
from the “old country” to find a better life in the U.S., have memories of their “old”
lifestyles in their home nations and, as such, have a greater appreciation for the U.S.
and its offerings. Such is not the case with adolescents. Because both their “old” and
“new” countries are the U.S., they compare themselves to their peers who are better
off than they are. This could result in their engaging in criminal behavior (Mateu-
Gelabert, 2002).
30
In summary, differences in ethnic identity can lead to misunderstandings,
competition, and conflict. Groups with high self-ratings usually have positive
attitudes toward other races, especially if they connect at a very early age. However,
differing languages and competition for resources create “insider” and “outsider”
groups, which produces conflict. When families immigrate to the U.S. at different
times, an acculturation gap is created. Among youth, wide acculturation gaps can
lead to increases in delinquency. Moreover, social control is weakened by various
internal and external forces, and weak attachments and a low degree of socialization
can lead to deviance.
Hate Crimes and Gangs
Many people who have studied ethnic conflict have inappropriately labeled
them as hate crimes. Such is the case when describing conflicts between Armenian
and Latino youth. According to law enforcement, hate crimes “generally follow the
‘but for’ rule: but for the hate motivation, this crime would never have been
committed” (Steinberg, Brooks, & Remtulla, 2003, p. 979).
Levin and Rebrenovic (2001) compared Jews and Blacks in the Crown
Heights section of New York City and in Jasper, Texas. Jasper, Texas was made
famous a few years ago by a report of Ku Klux Klan members chaining a Black man
to a truck and mercilessly dragging him down a rocky road until he died. They found
that “intergroup hostility escalates as a result of increasing intergroup contact,
especially in the form of competition for scarce resources” (p. 577). They also found
that “growing threats to the advantaged majority group since the early 1980s may
31
have inspired a rising tide of hate incidents directed against members of challenging
groups” (p. 577). A third finding by the was that “hate violence is likely to occur
wherever the advantaged or protected status of a group is being threatened” (p. 577).
Clearly, the perception of a threat is a key component in triggering conflicts between
ethnic groups.
When Armenians began to settle in Fresno, California, in the late 1800s and
early 1900s, they were forbidden from buying land because “it induced the fears of
the natives” (Mirak, 1983, p. 146). Therefore, laws were passed to prohibit Armenian
immigration by claiming Armenians were “Asiatic,” a law later overturned by the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals on December 24, 1909, in the case of
Halladjian (Ordjanian, 1991), which classified Armenians as what they really are:
Caucasian.
As discussed earlier, Tartakovsky and Mirsky (2001) studied students from
the former Soviet Union who were sent to study in Israel. Their research has
relevance to this topic because Armenia is a former Soviet Union republic. The
researchers noted that these students engaged in antisocial behavior, neglected their
homework, smoked cigarettes, dealt drugs, and usually had elevated levels of
aggression. Tartakovsky and Mirsky explained that these students “encountered
difficulties in communicating with their new countrymen due to language problems”
and were “unfamiliar with the new way of life, leading to feelings of alienation and
isolation” (p. 253). “When left to themselves, adolescent groups may act out the
combination of their needs for security, their dependency wishes, and their
32
aggressive drives in the crude form of a gang structure” (p. 256). Based on the
behaviors of others such as the students from the former Soviet Union, Soviet-
Armenian immigrants also are “accused of cheating the welfare system, of engaging
in gang-related crime, [of] crowding the county jail, and giving Armenians negative
press” (Bakalian, 1993, p. 21).
Bjorgo, Carlsson, and Haaland (2001) studied a sample of 50 youth (37 boys
and 13 girls) between the ages of 13 and 21 in the city of Kristiansand in Norway to
determine whether some “race crimes” occur for reasons such as trauma from a
particular incident that then leads one group to commit violence against another
group. The authors found that the background of the “anti-racist” gang included
being “traumatized by these [civil war] experiences, and they tend to take easy
recourse to violence” (p. 5).
Russian-Armenian adolescents come from families whose members are
heavily involved in organized crime. News sources in Los Angeles and outlying
areas have produced numerous stories about the Russian-Armenian Mafia’s
(Anderson, 2001; Bier, 1996; Calkins, 1994; Condon, 1999; Getrue, 1996; Pelisek &
Rappleye, 2002) committing various types of medical and insurance fraud, identity
theft, and illegal activities such as smuggling cigarettes from other states to avoid
paying taxes, hauling trucks filled with aluminum cans and glass bottles from other
states to California to turn them in for cash, and collecting and dismantling shopping
carts and cashing them in at recycling centers.
33
The youth in Bjorgo et al.’s (2001) study fought to combat racism and to
portray their dominance and control in the city. “Pull” reasons for joining gangs
included friendship, good company, kinship ties, excitement, protection, and lively
parties. “Push” reasons included being bullied, beaten up, threatened, and harassed.
The researchers found that youth involved in conflicts generally justified their
violent attacks against “the other” by stating that they were responding to
provocations or engaging in a reprisal for something “the others” have done to “us”
(p. 14). The gangs in Norway always exchanged expressions of hostility and
disrespect. The “purpose of making an insult is to provoke a reaction—possibly a
response that will end in full confrontation and fighting” (p. 14).
Boone’s (1994) research considered the community as a reason for the
creation of hate crimes and gangs. Boone defined community as “an aggregate of
people who share a common interest in a particular locality” (p. 4). Kasarda and
Janowitz (as cited in Warner & Rountree, 1997) defined community as “a complex
system of friendship and kinship networks and formal and informal associational ties
rooted in family life and ongoing socialization processes” (p. 329). Boone noted that
“the less stable a community is, the more likely it will result in conflict and conflict
in the community results in conflict in schools” (p. 3).
Boone (1994) defined stability as “the presence of general community
consensus about core values and purposes for the school and general agreement
about the contribution the school makes to the community” (p. 3). He noted that
social and economic changes can lead to conflicts and that once conflicts begin,
34
issues are expanded from specific to general, which introduces new issues and
disagreements that ultimately escalate into more hostile behavior. School districts are
as diverse as the communities they serve, and schools are affected by diversity, role
of the community, social/economic changes, and the dynamics of community
conflict.
Other research has looked at the effect of community cohesiveness. Based on
a social disorganization model, Warner and Rountree (1997) conducted a
quantitative study using a sample of 5,302 Seattle residents as means to measure
social ties model and their effects on crime rates, based on the racial composition of
the community. Social disorganization theory states that socioeconomic variables
decrease social controls that, in turn, increase crime. The researchers found that
“neighborhood structure has a direct affect on social ties, which affect behavioral
expectations” (p. 521). Their findings support Schiller’s (1969) finding that the
environment [community] shapes human behavior regardless of race. Schiller
focused on Park’s theory of assimilation to describe the stages that groups progress
through once they encounter each other. These stages are racial contact, competition,
conflict, accommodation, and assimilation. These stages occur across four levels of
society: personal, political, economic and ecological. Considering the waves of
recent immigrants into the U.S., one can assume that these various racial and ethnic
groups have passed the “contact” stage and are between the “competition” and
“conflict” stages.
35
In summary, competition for scarce resources leads to intergroup hostility.
Violence usually occurs when the majority group is threatened by another group.
Those exposed to violence are more likely to engage in it themselves, and various
“push” and “pull” factors lead to youth’s joining gangs. The less stable a community
is, the more conflict it will have and the more conflict that community’s school will
experience. Finally, certain socioeconomic variables lead to decreases in social
control, which results in increased crime.
Student Perceptions
Brown, Higgins, Pierce, Hong, and Thoma (2003) studied the concept of
alienation and its effects on students using a sample of 222 secondary students
attending two large high schools in the southeastern region of the U.S. They used
Bronfenbrenner’s definition of alienation, which is “a lack of sense of belonging,
feeling cut off from family, friends or school” (p. 1). They found that gender,
race/ethnicity, and placement in special education were all strong factors in
influencing whether students perceived school or life in general as alienating.
Norrid-Lacey and Spencer (2000) conducted a case study of 70 Latino immigrant
students at a southwest U.S. high school and found similar results. Norrid-Lacy and
Spencer found that newly arrived immigrants were often shunned and put down by
earlier immigrants, making the newly arrived immigrants feel alienated. This was
especially true when ESL students were mainstreamed into non-ESL classes.
Although they were capable of handling mainstream English classes, ESL students
did not want to be mainstreamed; they preferred to stay in their ESL classes because
36
they were more accepted by and comfortable with their newly arrived immigrant
peers. Moving ahead would mean being placed in a new classroom with new student
faces and ultimately being segregated by new students and from their old peers as
well.
The feeling of alienation felt by newly arrived Latino students was not only
caused by earlier arrivals, but by the federal government as well. Norrid-Lacey and
Spencer (2000) found that, while ESL students held extremely high academic and
future career aspirations for themselves, those desires were quickly extinguished by
their illegal immigration status. Students realized that, once they were ineligible to
receive any tuition assistance in the form of financial aid or even scholarships due to
their “illegal” status (undocumented), they gave up striving to achieve academically
and dropped out or went to work at sweatshops after graduation from high school.
Norrid-Lacey and Spencer (2000) also emphasized the significance of group
identity, in terms of the academic success of Latino immigrants, which they
described as “relating to others whom you consider to be similar to yourself in
significant ways” (p. 50). Katz (1996), in her ethnographic case study of eight
students from Central and South American nations, found that students were caught
in an “identity trap” of internal situations (what students thought of themselves) and
external situations (what others thought of the students), with the external usually
resulting in negative stereotypes. In keeping with Norrid-Lacey and Spencer’s (2000)
findings on the divisiveness between previously arrived and newly arrived students,
37
including divisiveness in terms of language ability, Katz noted that language is “the
most important symbolic element [involved in creating an identity]” (p. 610).
The formation of identity for Armenian students is different than that of
Central and South American students. Phinney, Romero, Nava, and Huang (2001)
found that Armenian students were not caught in “identity traps,” as were the Central
and South American students. Their Armenian identity was made unquestionably
clear by their parents’ maintenance of culture, enrollment of children in all-day,
private Armenian schools, emphasis on learning the Armenian language, and
association with Armenian peers.
Rodriguez (1994) stated that teens in gangs want respect, a sense of belonging,
and protection and that, because organizations such as the YMCA are never located
in the “barrio” or are historically racist, these organizations create and solidify
feelings of alienation within Latino youth. Weak ESL programs at schools, tensions
between Latino immigrant groups, and illegal (undocumented) status of Latino
students (Norrid-Lacey & Spencer, 2000) as well as marginalization, flunking, and
neighborhood pressure to join gangs (Katz, 1996), coupled with the findings that
males experienced greater alienation and meaninglessness (Brown et al., 2003)
influence Latino youth to join gangs and engage in continuation of crime. Moreover,
the high school graduation rates for Latinos born outside of the U.S. are only 57%
(Norrid-Lacey & Spencer, 2000).
Two studies concerned international students and their perceptions of what
causes ethnic conflict. Willinsky and Thomas (1997) studied a sample of 157 high
38
school students from several Pacific regions, as well as Australia, Canada, Columbia,
Hong Kong, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Aotearoa, Singapore, the Solomon
Islands, California, and Hawaii. The authors heard a variety of opinions for ethnic
conflict, including low levels of self-confidence, stated by Columbian students,
economic tensions or “elitism,” stated by Mexican students, and that there is no
racial or ethnic tension at school, stated by Chinese and Japanese students. Students
from California and Hawaii stated that [ethnic tensions] were “part of life at their
school” (p. 8). Overall, the results indicated that nations with the greatest numbers of
immigrants had the greatest numbers of racial and ethnic problems.
Cohen (1993) suggested that schools are perfect sites for race-related
discussion, yet schools do not engage students in any such type of discourse. Astor,
Benbenishty, Zeira, and Vinokur (2002) studied school variables related to
victimization and its consequences for Jewish and Arab middle school students in
Israel. They found that students stayed home when they were personally victimized,
not only when they thought school was a dangerous place. The researchers stated
that belonging to an ethnic group and coming from a neighborhood with high
poverty and crime affected the school.
As a result of Armenian and Latino conflicts, many community organizations
have been formed to discuss race relations. One example is the California Story
Fund, which is part of the California Council for the Humanities. The Project
Director has led 20 to 30 students from Hoover High School to share their identity
and immigration experiences while being filmed. Afterwards, their stories were
39
broadcasted from 12 mini-sized houses in a gallery open to the community
(California Council for the Humanities, 2005).
Another such organization is We Care For Youth (WCFY). Through Project
PLUS (Promoting, Learning, Unity, Success), in cooperation with the SPIRIT
(Students Problem Identifying and Resolving It Together) Council, and the use of
“appreciative inquiry” (an organizational management model), WCFY’s mission is
to bring together youth from different ethnic groups to raise cultural awareness,
eradicate hate, and promote harmony and cooperation through employment ventures
and leadership and character education workshops (We Care For Youth, 1991).
WCFY also oversees a youth business venture called “Bliss Unlimited.” Located in
the Glendale Galleria, youth are responsible for the creation, sale, and overall
business operations of the store.
Universities also have entered the arena of helping to diminish youth violence.
Led by a California State University, Northridge professor, a communications class
was piloted, which brought together high school and university students to increase
communication between the two groups and to discuss topics such as immigration,
stereotypes, and ethnic history (California State University, Northridge, 2000).
Jaasma (2001) studied a sample of 906 sixth graders in 12 elementary schools
in a large and ethnically diverse school district. His intent was to learn about the
“worst” experiences that students had with members of other ethnic groups. Jaasma
found that over 50% of elementary students had aggressive physical or verbal
interactions with other ethnic groups in the forms of “racial slurs,” “disagreements,”
40
“being made fun of,” and “personal dislikes” (p. 21). The students stated that “ethnic
differences” and “language barriers” were found to be the “deterrants to successful
relationships” (p. 22). This supports Norrid-Lacey and Spencer’s (2000) findings on
the effects of the language use on recently versus already arrived Latino immigrants.
Ancis, Sedlacek, and Mohr (2000) surveyed 578 Black, Asian, Hispanic, and
White undergraduate students at a large mid-Atlantic university. One of their
purposes was to compare perceptions of the university climate. Black students
experienced more racial conflict, separation, and tension than did the other ethnic
groups. Interestingly, the researchers found that Latinos experienced the least
amounts of racism and felt that it was due to their low student enrollment numbers.
In summary, increased immigration generally results in racial and ethnic
problems. Further, new immigration status can result in alienation, especially for
illegal immigrant youth because these students are ineligible for financial aid to
attend higher educational institutions. Geographically distant organizations also
produce alienation. Additionally, external identity traps lead to negative stereotyping
of groups. As a response to these problems, community organizations and
universities have created programs to reduce youth conflict and violence.
School Climate
Rarely is school climate considered a variable when discussing the reasons
for youth violence and ethnic conflict. However, more research is being conducted
on this important variable, and two perceptions of school climate have emerged.
According to Welsh, Stokes, and Greene (2000), school climate has four dimensions:
41
school culture (stated and unstated patterns of communication and normalcy),
organizational culture (administrative structures), social milieu (background of staff
and students), and ecological environment (physical setting). Another
conceptualization of school climate comes from Cartland, Ruch-Ross, and Henry
(2003), who define a “hospitable” school environment, specifically, a welcoming
climate, as “one [environment] in which students feel at home even if they feel
different from others or awkward” (p. 1).
Community related factors need to be taken into consideration in
understanding school climate. Walker (1999) noted that, while inequality created by
segregation has ended, thanks to Brown v. Board of Education, financial segregation
has taken its place, due to the mobility of wealthier families away from urban and
high-minority schools and districts, causing unequal receipt and distribution of
financial resources by needier schools. Other community related factors also affects
schools, including “high population density, high residential mobility, high poverty
rate, availability of weapons and drugs, and a high rate of adult involvement in
crime” (Welsh et al., 2000, p. 252). Secondary schools, in particular, are victims of
neighborhoods with high crime, low education, poverty, and schools with a majority
of males.
In regard to school climate, researchers have focused on the school’s
administration. In a qualitative study of a school in San Francisco, Henze (1999),
cited a principal who stated, “If there’s anything we do [in regard to ethnic relations],
we try to do it inside the classrooms” (p. 535). School officials recognized the value
42
of an ethnic curriculum to head off potentially violent ethnic conflicts and, as a
result, created a curriculum, which is now a graduation requirement, that addresses
the understanding of diverse cultures, while dispelling stereotypes. The philosophy
behind curriculum creation comes from Banks (as cited in Henze, 1999), who stated,
“a strong grounding in the history of one’s own people can give students a point of
departure that enables them to be more open to learning about others” (p. 542).
The work of two other school administrators is also highlighted in a case study
by Katz (1999). She compared a principal in San Francisco with one in Washington,
DC, both who worked at schools with intense ethnic tension and who were able to
reduce it. The steps taken by the San Francisco principal included morning
assemblies in which children and staff joined hands to form a circle and recite the
Pledge of Allegiance, creating “families” (advisory type groups whereby teachers
were responsible for a handful of students each day), hiring student advisors,
patiently working with students for positive change instead of punishing them,
hugging students and telling them she loved them, picking up parents from their
homes and driving them to school for events, and encouraging teachers to visit their
students’ homes.
Similar steps were taken by the Washington, DC school principal, with a few
exceptions. She made certain that the school was kept in immaculate condition and
encouraged cleanliness through competition, constantly stressed high expectations
and parental involvement, worked with students to improve academic and behavioral
deficiencies, encouraged contact with parents through telephone calls and home
43
visits, sent staff members to pick up absent students from their homes, looped
teachers to be with the same students for three years, created a parent center for
workshops, offered free ESL classes, hired parents to work at school (using leftover
money) and, like the San Francisco principal, greeted students as they came to and
left school (Katz, 1999).
The main concept behind the actions of these administrators was to create
close and personal student-student, student-teacher, and teacher-parent relationships.
As noted by Ladson-Billings (1995), administrators did not want to focus only on
students’ academic success; they also were concerned with their psychological well
being.
Teacher perceptions also can contribute to the school climate. Everett and
Price (1997) studied a sample of elementary and secondary public school teachers
across the U.S., using a 42-item MetLife survey that measured the scope of violence
as perceived by teachers, the impact of violence and the school’s response, and
student population characteristics. The results indicated that teachers saw three major
problems at schools: pushing, shoving and grabbing; verbal insults; and stealing. The
teachers felt that most violence occurred at schools with a large minority population,
with a very large student body, and where students were “regularly exposed to
violence.” The researchers also found that, at the secondary school level (middle and
high schools), boredom/lack of motivation and gang/group membership were seen as
variables contributing to violence (Everett & Price, 1997).
44
In summary, school climate is composed of four dimensions, as follows:
community school culture, organizational culture, social milieu, and ecological
environment. Loss of identity among groups causes an inward focus on their own
needs and goals. Community-related factors such as high poverty rates and high
residential mobility can detract financially from a school. Finally, administrators
play a pivotal role in creating a safe and pleasant school atmosphere.
Summary
Competition for scarce resources creates group conflict, and loss of identity
among groups makes them focus on their own needs and goals. Unfortunately,
violence can occur when groups feel threatened by each other. Additionally, the
focus on economics decreases the formation of bonds while increasing
individualism. In such an environment, social control is used to explain how society
“keeps itself in check,” but its effectiveness is weakened by various internal and
external forces, as well competition between “insider” and “outsider” groups. These
forces contribute to deviancy, delinquency, and crime. Community-related factors
such as high poverty rates and high residential mobility also contribute to crime and
violence. School programs are one way to prevent such ethnic conflict.
45
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to understand student, staff, and parent
perceptions of the reasons for ethnic conflict between Armenian and Latino students.
Although such conflict has existed for decades, the overwhelming majority of the
literature on ethnic and racial conflicts examines crimes committed by and against
other ethnic groups (e.g., African Americans, Latinos, Asians). As such, a qualitative
methodology was chosen, as Strauss and Corbin (1990) explain that qualitative
methods can be used to understand any phenomenon about which little is known.
Qualitative research is defined as “any kind of research that produces findings not
arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other means of quantification” (p.
17). This chapter presents the population and sample, data collection,
instrumentation, and data analysis. The following research questions guided the
study:
1. What are student, staff, and parent perceptions of the reasons for recent
incidents of violence between Armenian and Latino students on or near their school
campuses?
2. To what extent are the explanations for ethnic violence the same within
and between Armenian and Latino groups? Do age, gender, immigration status, and
other variables play a significant role in making a difference in how respondents
describe the conflict?
46
3. How can the views of youth, school staff, and parents inform policy and
help develop better prevention practices?
Population and Sample
Schools from two districts were the site of data collection due to the density
of Armenians in these districts. The schools included Hollywood High School and
North Hollywood High School, which are part of the Los Angeles Unified School
District, and Glendale High School, which is part of the Glendale Unified School
District.
This study utilized three groups: students, staff, and parents. The desired
sample consisted of 12 Armenian students, 8 Armenian staff members, and 8
Armenian parents, as well as 12 Latino students, 8 Latino staff members, and 8
Latino parents. There was an equal number of males and females, with 24 students,
16 staff members, and 16 parents, for a total of 56 participants. All students were
between the ages of 14 to 18. Staff must have been employed at the school site for at
least 5 years. For the purposes of this study, staff includes teachers, counselors,
teacher assistants, security staff, and parent center staff.
The researcher was able to interview 54 out of 56 participants, of which there
were no Armenian or Latino fathers. As noted above, students came from North
Hollywood, Glendale, and Hollywood High Schools and ranged from ninth through
twelfth grades. Staff members came from the three schools and ranged from
classroom teachers to coordinators, and parents came from all three schools as well
47
and represented various socioeconomic backgrounds. The final sample is presented
in Table 1.
Table 1
Study Participants
Gender
Armenian
Student
Armenian
Staff
Armenian
Parent
Latino
Student
Latino
Staff
Latino
Parent
Male 6 4 3 6 4 3
Female 6 4 4 6 4 4
Total 12 8 7 12 8 7
School principals and/or district administrators were contacted to seek
permission to enter their schools. Then the names of 24 Armenian and Latino
students who had participated in ethnic conflicts were requested from the school.
Students who wished to participate in the study were given a parental consent form,
which had to be signed and returned. Then a date and time were scheduled to
conduct the tape-recorded interview. For students who spoke Spanish only or were
beginning English learners, a Spanish-speaking colleague was present to assist.
While on campus, the researcher distributed flyers about the study to
Armenian and Latino staff members via their mailboxes. Of those staff members
who responded, 16 were randomly selected. A date and time were scheduled for a
tape-recorded interview at a location convenient for each.
In regard to parents, the research sent a mailer, which included a flyer, to all
Armenian- and Spanish-speaking households. Flyers included the contact
information for parents interested in participating in the study. Of the parents who
48
responded, 16 parents were randomly selected. A date and time were scheduled for a
tape-recorded interview with the parents at a location convenient for each parent.
Again, as needed, a Spanish-speaking college was present.
Data Collection
Data collection occurred in Fall 2006. All interviewees were explained the
purpose of the interview, terms of confidentiality, format of the interview, including
the length of time it would take to complete, and the researcher’s contact
information. They also were given time to ask questions of the researcher.
The researcher chose maximum variation sampling, which uses the same
questions for all participants, using semi-structured interviews. Maximum variation
sampling, according to Lincoln and Guba (1985), is the most useful and naturalistic
strategy for qualitative studies. In such interviews, participants are free to respond as
they wish, with no right or wrong answers. Moreover, such responses allow for
content analysis to discern patterns. Patton (1990) stated, “Any common patterns that
emerge from great variation are of particular interest and value in capturing . . . core
experiences” (p. 172).
Instrumentation
The researcher developed nine interview questions related to perceptions of
ethnic conflicts between Armenian and Latino students (Appendix A). Interview
questions 1 to 3 address the first research question (What are student, staff, and
parent perceptions of the reasons for recent incidents of violence between Armenian
and Latino students on or near their school campuses?) Participants were asked
49
questions related to the major concepts described in the theoretical framework of this
study. Interview questions 4 to 6 address the second research question (To what
extent are the explanations for ethnic violence the same within and between
Armenian and Latino groups? Do age, gender, immigration status, and other
variables play a significant role in making a difference in how respondents describe
the conflict?) Interview questions 7 to 10 address the third research question (How
can the views of youth, school staff, and parents inform policy and help develop
better prevention practices?). Related to these research questions, a list of programs
and curricula on ethnic conflicts and resolution is presented in Appendix B.
Data Analysis
Huberman and Miles’ (2002) procedure for qualitative data analysis was to
reduce and display the data, as well as draw and verify conclusions from the data.
The method allows a researcher to discern common themes among the participants.
In this case, the focus was perceptions of the factors that contribute to ethnic conflict
between Armenian and Latino students.
Huberman and Miles (2002) explained that selecting, focusing, simplifying,
abstracting, and transforming the data are the key elements in data reduction. As
such participants responses were recorded and transcribed, as well as revisited. This
set the stage for data analysis.
Once the interviews were transcribed, the researcher sorted through and
looked for emerging categories. The data were then organized by themes, which
helped make sense of the data. Finally, the researcher drew and verified conclusions,
50
based on themes in the data. In the process, the researcher considered and
reconsidered conclusions continuously checking with the data, which enabled
verification. If conclusions were not sufficiently solid, the researcher had to consider
them unverifiable and new conclusions were drawn.
51
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
This chapter presents the results of the analysis of the interviews that
concerned students, staff, and parent perceptions of the reasons for ethnic conflict
between Armenian and Latino students. The chapter is organized by research
question. For each research question, the emergent themes are presented and
discussed.
Research Question 1
Four themes emerged in response to this research question. These themes
were views of Armenian/Latino relationships, views of Armenians, views of Latinos,
and the eruption of fights.
Views of Armenian/Latino Relationships
When discussing Armenian and Latino student relationships in schools, the
most common response was that relationships have improved over the years, but
both the groups still dislike each other. No differences in perceptions of relationships
were reported between Armenians and Latinos, but there were differences between
male and female participants. Females had a more positive view of Armenian/Latino
student relationships. A female Latino student stated, “They tend not to get along
with the majority of them. There’s been fights, but it’s been going down.” A female
Armenian staff member stated, “The past two years, I’ve actually seen a difference in
the relationship that they’ve had compared to the, you know, the three years prior to
that.” Staff also had a more positive view about the relationship, as did 75% of the
52
students. A male Armenian student stated, “Everything is calm right now. Um, I
haven’t seen any fights between Armenians and with Latino students lately, but back
then, it wasn’t like this, before. So, I think it is more calm now.”
No Armenian or Latino male staff members responded to the question of
student relationships in schools, while half of the female Armenian and Latino staff
members did. A female Latino staff member stated, “I wouldn’t say it’s a big
problem on our campus. Yes, we’ve had fight after fight among the same groups of
people and they’re usually Armenians/Latinos, but I wouldn’t say it’s an ongoing
problem.” An equal number of male and female Armenian and Latino had a positive
view of student relationships. One female Armenian student stated, “Uh, relationship
right now is not as bad as it used to be,” and a male Latino student stated, “Well,
when I first got here, the relationship between Armenians and Latinos was like
slowly decreasing . . . before that, in my middle school, I heard a lot of bad things
like fighting’ it came out in the news most of the time.”
Finally, of the parents, only one female Armenian parent and no male
Armenian parent had a positive view of student relationships, and only one male
Latino parent, but no female Latino parent had a positive perspective. The one
female Armenian parent stated, “For the past two years or so, things have been
relatively calm” and the one male Latino parent said, “I’ve heard through my son
that he has seen many Armenian/Latino fights in the past, but now the fights have
lowered and he hasn’t seen one in years.”
53
Both Armenian and Latino females felt that Armenian and Latino student
relationships were positive. One female Latino staff member, who remembers a time
when the relationship was violent, explained, “Most of the time they get along . . .
[but] back in ’96, there was a lot of tension going on.” One Armenian mother likened
the build-up of fights between Armenian and Latino students to an Armenian
anecdote about a drop of honey landing on the ground, which afterwards lands on a
fly, which is then eaten by a mouse, which is then attacked by a cat, and then
attacked by a dog. That is to say, “a lot of the conflicts that we had began from, from
little problems . . . but for the past two years or so, things have been relatively calm.”
Her statement is significant because these “little problems” that spurred the fights
have slowed or ceased, decreasing the extent of conflict.
Although the relationship between Armenian and Latino students has
improved over the years, the groups still dislike each other. More females than males
responded that both groups hated each other. A female Latino student stated, “They
don’t like each other,” and another female Latino student noted, “Um, they don’t
quite get along. I guess it is because the Armenians just don’t like Latinos and
Latinos just don’t like Armenians.” Hatred was a common theme among male
Latinos. For example, a male Latino student stated, “Well, none of them really like
each other,” while a male Armenian student explained, “There are some Armenian
students who hate Latinos, and there are some Latinos students who hate Armenians,
and there is no reason to fight.”
54
There was also a difference in female students’ perceptions. Three female
Latino students talked about the hatred between the groups, while no female
Armenian students talked about the hatred. A common theme among Latinos was
that the two groups hated each other, with the most responses in this regard coming
from students. Interestingly, not a single staff member felt that the two groups
disliked each other and, of parents, only one female Armenian parent responded,
with no responses by any male Armenian or male or female Latino parents. The
female Armenian parent stated, “From what I see, they each call each other names.
You know, ethnic or racial slurs and all that.” This may mean that parents do not see
animosity between the two ethnic groups or that they are oblivious to it because they
are uninvolved.
Some interesting findings emerged regarding the separation between
Armenian and Latino students. A common theme among Latinos was that Armenian
and Latino students stayed separate from each other. A female Latino student noted,
“Well they’re kind of separate, everyone has their like, their place where they hang
around and no Armenians and Hispanics hang around together.” Of students, only
one female Latino responded that both groups stayed separate. Perhaps such
divisiveness is not blatant or significant in the eyes of students; however, it was
obvious to the staff members. A male Latino staff member stated:
Uh, from my experience, what I notice is that they tend to hang out in
different areas. But as far as like hanging out with each other, I think both
groups take their own sides, uh, probably because, most likely because, they
feel uncomfortable, uh, just hanging out with one group of kids. For example,
just a Hispanic kid hanging out only with, only Armenian kids and vice versa.
55
Two male Armenian staff members noticed that students stayed separate,
whereas no female Armenian staff members noticed this. A male Armenian staff
member noted, “In this case, ethnicity plays a role in terms of dividing students into
groups—the same language, habits, dress.” With respect to Latino staff members,
two females and one male also noticed the separateness. “Ugh,” stated a female
Latino staff member. “It seems that both, um, ethnic groups tend to separate
themselves from each other. So, basically the Armenians have their own clique of
friends and the Latinos do as well.” Only one parent, a female Latino, knew about
the separateness, while male Latino parents, female Armenian parents, and male
Armenian parents did not. The female Latino parent stated, “The times I’ve been at
[name of] High School, I’ve noticed that Latino and Armenian students are usually
separated. They do not interact with one another outside the classroom.”
Armenians and Latinos perceived themselves to be more sophisticated and as
part of a higher social class than the other group. According to one female Armenian
student, “They didn’t like each other because the Latinos thought that they were
better and the Armenians thought that they were better, so they fought for that.”
When asked to describe the reasons for the relationship between the two groups, a
female Latino student stated that she’d been asked a tough question, but stated,
“They don’t like each other, probably because of racism and they think that they’re
best.” Socioeconomic levels are perceived as being a stronger reason for fights than
is racism.
56
One female Armenian parent detailed her feelings about what she perceived
to be the reason for conflict between Armenians and Latinos. She stated, “It’s . . .
‘I’m better than you.’ Basically, I feel like they both feel [the other is] below their
accepted social norms,” while a male Latino parent noted, “The Latinos are proud of
their race; as well the Armenians are proud of theirs.” With both groups feeling
superior and having racial pride, the stage is set for conflict.
A bittersweet relationship connects Armenians and Latinos. While conflicts
between them have calmed down, their social interactions have not been
strengthened or turned into loving relationships. They each occupy their own
spheres, making sure not to intersect, while still holding belittling attitudes about the
other.
How Armenians and Latinos View Armenians
“Armenian families are tightly knit” was the most common response. An
equal number of males and females stated that Armenian families were tightly knit.
“They’re very united, I guess,” stated a male Latino staff member. “I think the
Armenians have a stronger sense of belonging to a group.” A female Armenian staff
member was more descriptive. She explained, “Armenian families . . . the whole
family is one unit, uh, they stay together and they defend each other . . . Armenian
boys and Armenian girls stick together because they are from the same nationality.”
Students, parents, and staff members shared the same observations. Fear of
assimilation spurred one female Armenian parent to say the following in regard to
keeping Armenian children sheltered from non-Armenian environments. “When they
57
come to teenagehood, I think parents have more fear that their children will be losing
their language, their culture, so they try hard to keep them within their group and
focusing very much on cultural issues.” A female Armenian student also discussed
the closeness of Armenians. “We are tightly knit with our families, very big families,
and we are very tightly knit with that and our families are like a brotherhood.” Of the
students, two female Armenians felt that Armenian families were tightly knit, along
with one male Latino student. A female Armenian student stated, “Uh, I know that
they are very united . . . they’re always together,” and a male Latino student
observed that Armenians are “really like, they’re really close to each other. A lot of
them keep in touch.” Another male Latino student noted, “They are really close to
each other.” No responses were given by male Armenian or female Latino students.
The staff consisted of an equal number of males and females. A male Latino
staff member noted how Armenian families “are very close together” and another
male Latino staff member stated, “They’re very united.” One male Latino staff
member marveled at the connectedness of Armenians and explained, “But what I
notice [about] Armenians [is that] they are very close knit families and it seems that,
uh, seems like almost many times Armenians know each other, everybody knows
each other. Yeah (laughing), that’s how it seems.” Interestingly, six Latino staff
members and only one Armenian staff member included “tightly knit” as their
comments. Overall, however, many staff members were amazed at how close a
group of people can actually be.
58
Finally, two male Latino parents and one female Armenian parent observed
that Armenian families were tightly knit. A male Latino parent stated, “I do not
know much about Armenian families, but I know that they stick together.” Another
male Latino parent noted, “What I have seen so far is that they are truly united and,
well, they all help each other.” Similar to the students, no responses were given by
male Armenian parents or female Latino parents.
The second finding that emerged from respondents’ statements about
Armenian families was that they held onto and believed strongly in traditional
values. A common theme among males was that Armenians held onto their cultural
beliefs. A male Latino staff member stated, “Um, I know that the father, father
figures are very strong. I know the families are usually very committed to one other.”
A male Armenian staff member explained:
The social structure would be probably the father is a patriarch. The mothers
usually taking care of the kids. Sometimes mothers work, sometimes they
don’t. Um, to some degree, the siblings are pretty independent. Males are,
females siblings are not. There’s a little more control over them.
A common theme was found among Armenians, but less strongly among
students. Of the students, one was a male Armenian, one was a female Armenian,
and the third was a male Latino. The female Armenian student stated, “We have a
traditional upbringing, basically.” There were no responses by female Latinos. A
common theme found among male Armenian staff members was a description of
Armenian families as having traditional values. One male Armenian staff member
noted, “Armenian families are male oriented, and the girls in the family are expected
to marry and have kids . . . Armenians have a high sense of family values.” With
59
respect to parents, statements about Armenian families being traditional came from
Armenians and Latinos of both genders. A male Latino parent stated, “Their
Armenian cultures are still alive and their traditions are still practiced,” while a male
Latino student noted, “They’re very conservative and that they want to keep their
children (laughing) until they get married or something like that.”
Participants most commonly and clearly observed the connectedness among
Armenians and the maintenance of their cultural practices. These two themes
represent Armenians to those who view them.
How Armenians and Latinos View Latinos
A common theme among Armenian, but not Latino, participants was that
Latino families are lenient. In regard to Latino families, a female Armenian student
stated, “They’re pretty much not that much strict, only like some of them,” and
another female Armenian student noted, “They’re not as strict.” One male Armenian
student noted, “I heard from people that Latino families, they are people that don’t
care about their kids. They don’t follow them, what they do, if they do drugs or not.”
Only two staff members mentioned that Latino families were lenient and not a single
Armenian or Latino parent responded. Most of the female Armenians felt that Latino
families were lenient. One female Armenian student stated, “Their parents are like
more open to let their kids do whatever they want.”
This “leniency” is explained by a female Latino staff member, who felt that
longer workdays were the reason that Latino children are more independent. She
stated, “They don’t have a lot of supervision time and that makes the kids somehow
60
disrespectful.” Finally, a male Latino staff member commented on the independence
given to Latino children by their parents. “And what I know about Latino families is
that they are more publicly, openly, uh, they provide their sons and daughters more
freedom, more freedom than Armenian families.”
A second theme among Armenians was that Latinos value family. This theme
was also common among staff, but expressed by only one parent. Aside from one
female respondent, the responses came from males. No students, either Armenian or
Latino, believed that Latinos valued family, nor did any female Latino staff
members, female Latino parents, or male or female Armenian parents. When asked
to describe Latino families, one male Armenian staff member stated, “It’s kind of
male dominated and it’s also [that] they value the family a lot.” Another male
Armenian staff member noted, “They put high regard, emphasize the social family
units—taking care of one another, marriage, kids. Um, I believe they have similar
family values and social values.” Even though not many of the participants specified
Latino people from differing countries (e.g., El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico,
Argentina), one male Armenian staff member stated, “Armenian families are more
similar to Mexican American families than any other Latino families. Like Mexican
Americans, Armenian have high sense of family values and also dedication to their
children.” A male Latino parent from Argentina stated, “For the Latinos, [it] is the
same. Family is very important and they are always together.”
These findings about Latinos are important for several reasons. First, they
demonstrate that Armenians and Latinos have similar beliefs about family and social
61
values, especially Latinos from Mexico. Second, they reveal how the same theme of
parenting has two differing viewpoints—an Armenian viewpoint that sees Latinos as
“lenient” with their children for no apparent reason and a Latino viewpoint that sees
the reason for this leniency as based on lack of supervision due to the longer work
days of parents.
Eruption of Fights
That Armenians, and not Latinos, would have started the fights was a
common theme found among Armenians, and a common theme was found among
females and students. Specifically, this theme was found among female Armenian
students and, for Latinos, among males. Among Armenian and Latino staff members,
both genders responded that Armenians began the fights. In regard to parents, equal
numbers of male and female Armenian parents felt that Armenians started fights.
There were several reasons offered in regard to Armenians being blamed for
starting fights. The most common response concerned Armenian girls. If Latino boys
either talked to or used profanity in front of Armenian girls, Armenian boys would
fight with Latino boys. An insightful look into this situation came from a female
Armenian staff member, who was born and raised in Armenia. She stated:
Armenian boys . . . feel this, you know, this cultural protection, of this, of
Armenian girls . . . the girls are not supposed to look at other guys or talk to
other guys, or . . . interact with them. And so, if a Hispanic guy . . . talks to an
Armenian girl or like tries to hit on an Armenian girl or, God forbid, curses in
front of an Armenian girl . . . like the Armenian guy just feels that’s his
moment of chivalry . . . to, you know, protect . . . his Armenian woman,
female counterpart and, you know, protect his culture . . . assert his culture,
cultural like, norms, whatever he thinks, what he’s supposed to do as an
Armenian.
62
Another male Armenian staff member, also born and raised in Armenia,
stated, “The fights usually begin when a Latino student ‘hits’ on an Armenian girl or
makes a comment towards an Armenian student.” A male Armenian teacher, who
worked at the school since 1998, noted, “It usually starts over, I’ve heard, over some
type of a girl story.” A rather comical account came from a male Latino senior, who
stated:
So they start fighting or sometimes because of the girls, you know. ‘Cause,
you know, there are several Armenian girls that are really pretty. So, you
know, the Latinos are like, ‘Oh wow, Chiquita.’ They say all this kind of
stuff, ‘Chiquita,’ whistling at them and so that Armenians get really pissed
off and or mad and they start defending the Armenian girls. So this is another
thing why Armenians and Latinos get into fights.
That fights started over girls was a common theme. A female Armenian staff
member stated, “Fights happen because of an incident with a girl,” while a female
Armenian parent noted:
One particular fight that comes into mind, I don’t know of the details, but it
was like some Hispanic person was talking to an Armenian girl, and the
Armenian guy felt that he was, um, dishonoring her, so the fight broke out.
This parent added, “The Hispanic couldn’t think in that terms like he was
dishonoring the Armenian by talking to his girlfriend or joking with the girl.” The
parent was implying that the same incident was viewed differently by the two
groups—the Armenians as a threat to their culture and the Latinos as a harmless
teenage courtship.
Another common response given was that some of the conflict was caused
accidentally. One male Armenian parent stated, “I know that many Armenian boys
are easily provoked and can burst out from something that might seem unimportant.”
63
His statement fits nicely with statements given by other participants. When asked
why she believed that Armenians would have started a fight, one female Armenian
student explained, “Because like if the guys or someone looks at them wrong, they
like start cussing and they’ll go crazy. They dog the person and like ‘come here.’
They start talking and fight.” Another female Armenian student stated:
Maybe Armenian guys, because if they sense that if supposedly something
happens, let’s say Latino guy looks at him, then he would go up to him. ‘Oh
why is he talking to me’ or anything like that or ‘you told this to my sister or
to Armenian girl.’ They’ll just try to make an argument, I guess.
A male Latino student noted:
Well, from past experiences, a bump in the shoulder could make a big
difference or like the wrong look or something, and they get angry very fast.
You have to learn to deal with it. You know what I mean?
These accidental bumps and looks are misconstrued and are considered silly
by participants. One female Armenian parent stated, “I’m sure it could be about you
pushed me, you looked at me, you know, minor, stupid stuff like that,” and one male
Armenian staff member noted, “The other fights over the years, I’ve heard, it could
be almost anything, I mean, I’ve heard this kid looking at this boy the wrong way
and, as a result, there was a fight.”
Another common theme had to do with feelings of superiority and power by
Armenians, which were mentioned by Armenian participants. A female Armenian
student stated:
Oh well, it just gives them pride. It, they think that they look more, like
higher. People look up to them like, ‘Oh, you can’t mess with this person
‘cause they got in a fight and they won.’ Like, I know one Armenian boy and
he has like designated places for fights like every weekend almost (laugh)
and he hasn’t lost yet, and that just tells other people who may want to fight,
64
‘Oh you’d better be equipped if you want to get with me.’ So, it just gives
you honor, I guess.
Another female Armenian student explained, “Because they like to start stuff by
thinking they’re higher than the other ones and that gets them into trouble with
Latinos.” A male Armenian staff member noted, “Armenian newcomer students
consider it beneath them to associate with Latino students.” Finally, in regard to
Armenian boys, a female Armenian explained, “It’s very typical of them to have
very extremely high self-esteem and self-regard . . . they see their own self-esteem
and self-privilege and self-regard as their strength.”
Respondents also faulted Latinos with starting fights. A common theme
found among Latinos was that Latinos start fights. Males and females responded the
same way in regard to Latinos starting the fights, as did students. Male Armenian
students blamed Latinos with starting fights, but not a single female Armenian
student did. Male and female Armenian staff members, as well, did not blame
Latinos for starting fights. Male and female Latino students did blame Latinos for
starting fights, unlike female Armenian students, who did not respond. Of male and
female Latino staff members, the females felt that Latinos were the fight starters, as
did female Latino parents, but not male Latino parents. Finally, male and female
Armenian parents both felt that Latinos, as well as Armenians, started the fights.
Some participants saw Latinos as cocky, aggressive, and quick to fight.
According to one female Latino student, “I would say Latinos just because I am
Latina, and I see how easily, um, tempers are, you know, rise and how quick they are
to get involved into physical fights.” One female Latino parent stated, “Um, it’s sad
65
to say, but I would say Latinos because, um, I think we’re more aggressive and they
would just start fights for anything.” When asking a Latino student why he thought
Latinos would have started the fight, he explained:
Some of them get really, like, cocky and they think, ‘oh, I can do this to that
person cause he looks weak. So, I might as well pick on him and use all my
strength and advantages to like beat him up or something.’
Latino attempts at dominance were another common response. Participants
gave various accounts of how seeking control became an impetus for violence. A
female Armenian student stated, “I think the Latinos started the fight because there
are more of them and they kind of like to be the more dominant group.” The theme
of dominance also is seen in a male Latino student’s response:
I would think that Latinos started the fight for the fact that I think they’re
less, for some reason, organized, not respectful of other people. They come to
the U.S. thinking that they want to control and the fact that that’s bad.
Similar to the female Armenian student’s response, a female Armenian parent
commented about Latino strength in numbers, stating, “And as far as the Latino side
is concerned, they actually see themselves strong because of their numbers, since
there are so many Latino students. So that they see as their strength.” Finally, a
female Armenian parent noted, “Each would think that they are the ones in power
and should control, which is wrong.”
In summary, both Armenians and Latinos were seen as equally initiating
conflicts. The Armenians were thought to start fights because the Armenian boys
sought to protect or defend Armenian girls from Latino boys talking to them, they
would overreact to accidental bumps or meaningless looks, and they felt superior to
66
Latinos. The Latinos were viewed as starting fights because they are cocky,
aggressive, and quick to fight and to try to dominate Armenians.
Research Question 2
The themes that emerged in response to this research question concern the
reasons for conflicts with Latinos, reasons for conflict with Armenians, age and
fights, and immigration and fights.
Reasons for Conflicts with Latinos
The most commonly cited reason for conflicts with Latinos was that Latinos
provoke male and female Armenian students and talk unfavorably about them.
Armenians and Latinos responded similarly in this regard. When comparing males
and females, this theme was found among female participants and among students.
In regard to the parents, not a single Armenian parent responded to this
question; only one female Latino parent responded. Overall, except for the Armenian
group, this theme was found among females. Aside from the Armenian and Latino
students, no males addressed the reasons that Armenians fought with Latinos.
Two major themes emerged. The first theme was that Latinos generally made
negative comments to Armenians, which caused Armenians to respond in a violent
manner. Negative comments included the use of profanity, disrespectful remarks,
and teasing. A second theme concerned the use of profanity in front of Armenian
girls, to which Armenian boys were quick to respond. One female Armenian student
bluntly stated, “Latinos dog them [Armenians] a lot and talk shit about them.”
Another female Armenian student explained, “They always obviously will be like,
67
‘He started it. He said something to me. He cussed me. He said something to my
mom.’” A female Armenian staff member stated, “Probably that Latinos students
disrespected them, um, would be the answer, would be their reason, that they called
them a name. I don’t know, maybe cussed at them.” One female Armenian staff
member explained, “The Armenians explain the reasons for conflicts with Latinos as
the Latinos trying to irritate and frustrate and curse and just trying to push their
buttons until they get a response.” A male Latino student’s response not only
emphasized cursing as a reason for conflict, but also as an issue of control.
Okay, if I were Armenian and if I know a little bit of history, what I would
think, oh, the Latinos think that this land is still theirs. So that’s why they
want to feel like they own this land, and they want to do whatever they want
and that Latinos think they can curse at anybody including us, as Armenians.
Another cause for conflicts with Latinos, as noted above, was the use of
profanity in front of Armenian girls. This was a common theme found among
Armenians and males. Only male Armenian students addressed this issue.
Additionally, no male or female Latino students responded to it. However, an equal
number of male and female Armenian staff members responded, as did female
Latino staff members. There was also a difference between Armenian and Latino
parents. Both male and female Armenian parents responded, but neither male nor
female Latinos addressed the issue nor did Latino students.
Disrespecting Armenian girls by using profanity in their presence or by
merely talking to them was enough to trigger violent reactions by male Armenians.
One male Armenian student stated:
68
There was a fight that happened in 2004. It was a big fight. So the Armenian
guys stepped up for it and said, like, don’t say it again. And the Latino guys
came back and they started to fight with the Armenians.
Participants repeatedly referred to the act of cursing in front of female
Armenians as a reason for fights. “The Latinos,” stated one male Armenian staff
member, “they don’t respect them [Armenians]. And they cuss in front of women
and they, they don’t respect, you know, females and they just, you know, they don’t
understand the Armenian culture.” One male Armenian explained:
So, probably the major percentage of the fights [that] erupt are probably
because of the profanity. Uh, that a lot of it is used by Latino boys and even
Latino girls, which is uncommon for the Armenian students to use. And
whenever cursing is done in front of Armenian girls, that is usually when the
boys get involved in fights.
Another male Armenian student explained:
I think the Armenians would say that the conflict is because they’re [Latinos]
talking about Armenians. They’re saying bad things in front of them. They’re
cussing in front of a girl, as I said earlier . . . and sometimes they fight over
girls because of Latino students are cussing out in front of Armenian girls and
it’s not appropriate for Armenians, so yeah.
Finally, another male Armenian stated, “Armenians don’t like when there’s a girl
around and there’s a Latino person cussing. Uh, they don’t show respect. so it just
makes a conflict over there.”
Armenians have a different view of respect for themselves and for their
female counterparts than do Latinos. While teasing, disrespect, and sometimes
cussing may seem harmless to most, it is a problem for Armenian males when it
occurs in front of female Armenians.
69
Reasons for Conflicts with Armenians
Latinos noted the Armenians’ feeling of superiority as the main reason for
conflicts with them. They accused the Armenians of treating them in a lowly manner
and showing off. Latinos felt that the Armenians were racist and did not like their
“financial exhibition.”
A common theme among Latinos was that Armenians belittled them, which
was seen more strongly among males. There were no differences in the types of
responses between male and female Armenian staff members and parents, but there
were differences between male and female Latino staff members and parents. Male
Latino parents believed that cultural differences (language and region immigrated
from) were the reasons for conflict between the two groups, while female Latino
staff members believed that freedom of association, misunderstandings,
unfriendliness, and accessibility to government assistance were the reasons for
conflict. Conceitedness, arrogance, and feelings of superiority, were the common
themes found among male Latino staff members, as well as among female Latino
parents.
When comparing Armenian and Latino students, more Latino than Armenian
students responded, with female Latinos stating that the Armenians’ air of
superiority was the reason they fought with Armenians. Among Armenian students,
males stated that they think they are better than everybody else and, regrettably,
often show it, which makes those around them feel unimportant and irritated. One
male Latino staff member stated, “What Latinos say is that Armenian students . . .
70
think they are better than anybody else and this, I think, creates a problem or that
they get into fights.” Another male Latino staff member explained:
Some of the Latinos might feel that Armenians might see them as being less
or, um, as somewhat being more, um, in a higher social status level . . . than
the Latino population as a whole. And some students might, might see it that
way and resent that.
Latinos fight with Armenians because they perceive Armenians as thinking
that they are better than Latinos. One female Latino parent noted, “They have this
concept where the Armenians feel that they are elevated high up and the Latinos are
like at the bottom, yeah.” Armenian respondents had a similar view. A female
Armenian staff member stated:
Armenians give a general aura or vibe of, ‘you are this little, and we’re up
here’ and that they’re [Latinos] not important and they’re lower than us. I
think that’s, I think [that] Hispanics feel that and that would be the reason
why they [Latinos] dislike them [Armenians].
Armenian youth responded similarly. A male student stated:
Armenians try to make them, themselves, look like they control everything,
they’re better than everyone else, and Latinos don’t like that. They don’t like
to be, to let Armenians feel that way, and Armenians do that all the time.
They try to show that they are better than everyone else.
Another male Armenian student stated, “For whatever we [Armenians] have, show it
off too much.” Finally, a male student commented:
Um, from my point of view, I think they [Latinos] think, ‘oh look, Armenians
are, they think they are all that and they think they’re like the main, the top
head of everything,’ so yeah. I think that and they don’t like it.
Latinos attributed Armenian racism towards them as another reason for
conflict. That Armenians stick to their own is often mistaken for racism. For
example, one male Latino staff member stated, “Armenian students are racist,” and a
71
male Armenian staff member explained, “The Latino kids would probably say
something about Armenian kids are being racist.” The Latino staff member further
stated:
Possibly some of them [Armenians] have this type of a cocky ethnocentric
attitude. They don’t like us [Latinos], or they try to talk to their own kind, or
they try to go out with their own kind . . . clan-like, clinging to their own type
and not wanting to interact with others.
The economic status of Armenians was also viewed by some Latinos as
contributing to conflict. It is not clear, however, whether it was the wealth of the
Armenians or their attitude about it that disturbed the Latinos. In either case, Latinos
felt that financial factors contributed to conflicts. A female Latino staff member
stated, “They’re dressed so nice all the time. They have the nice cars. They think
they’re better than me.” A female Latino student explained, “Armenians can get
what they want because they are richer . . . cars . . . than Mexicans. Latinos don’t get
new clothes . . . [our] shoes are ripped.” One male Latino student stated, “Well,
mostly cause they’re high class, they seem more high class than Latinos. I mean
when my friends show me pictures of their houses, they are very luxurious and
elegant, and I guess that’s probably mostly the conflict.”
In summary, three themes emerged as to the reasons that Latinos engaged in
conflicts with Armenians. The first theme was that Armenians thought that they were
better than Latinos. The second was perceived Armenian racism. The third theme
was resentment of the economic position of Armenians.
72
Age and Fights
A common theme among Armenians and females of both ethnic groups was
that age did not matter in fights. A male Armenian student stated, “Not at all ‘cause
of different age people. [It] just doesn’t matter how old are you, as long as you’re
Armenian or Latino, just that part could make a violent activity between them.” A
female Latino staff member noted, “Age to me, not really . . . I don’t think age would
be one.” Students responded to the most to this question, followed by staff and then
parents.
One male Latino student stated, “The age, I don’t think it matters at all,” and
another male Latino student noted, “Not at all. It has nothing to do with age, nothing
to do with it.” Finally, a female Armenian student stated, “No, they don’t care what
age they are to fight.” This theme was found among female Armenian students more
than among males; however, the theme was found equally in male and female Latino
students. One male Latino student stated, “I don’t think it has to do anything with
age,” while a female Latino student noted, “Um, no I don’t think age matters.”
With respect to staff members, male and female Armenian staff members
both addressed the issue, but male Latino staff members did not. When asked about
age, a female Latino staff member stated, “I don’t think it has anything to do with
that.” Her feelings were echoed by a female Armenian staff member, who noted, “I
wouldn’t say age is the factor.”
Parents differed in their responses. Female Armenian parents and male Latino
parents did not address this issue, whereas Armenian and female Latino parents
73
addressed the issue, with the theme as more common among female than male
Latino parents. A male Armenian parent described his son’s school site and his
concern with profanity in front of a female Armenian student, not age, as the issue of
concern.
I don’t think age matters. My son works in a middle school and there are
fights over there, just like high school. Age is really not a factor. Um, you
know, when a female listens to curse words, uh, either if I were ten years old
or fifty years old, I would still fight with that person. Uh, so age doesn’t
matter.
However, some participants did feel that age mattered. They stated that
younger people were more immature and tended to get riled up without thinking
about the consequences. Staff members, overall, felt that age did matter, followed by
students and then parents. A male Latino staff member stated, “I think age more than
anything else, uh, the one factor . . . our students are still are quite immature, and a
lot of the times, they find themselves in situations that they cannot handle as adults.”
A female Armenian staff member explained, “Age has a very big factor to play
because when you are younger, you’re more reckless, rebellious, you’re willing to
fight for a cause. But when you’re older, you’re a little more mature.”
A female Armenian staff member stated, “The age yes, they are teenagers
and they act before then think. That’s one quality they have in common.” A male
Latino student explained, “Yeah, most ninth graders tend to be a little bit more
immature about things.” Parents had similar responses. A male Latino parent stated,
“Age . . . really matters. Usually those who are young tend to fight more,” and a
74
female Armenian parent stated that fights started by younger students were caused
by “teenage developmental stages.”
A worrisome response given by some participants concerned hatred. These
participants stated that age did not matter in fights and that Armenian and Latino
students fought each other simply because they hated each other. A male Latino
student stated, “It’s just hatred between two people. It has nothing to do with age . . .
at all. It’s just hatred. Lots and lots of hatred.” His sentiments were echoed by a
female Latino student who explained, “Um, no, I don’t think age matters. I just think
it’s . . . just ‘cause they don’t like each other.” Another female Latino student was
more emphatic, stating, “It’s probably like the Armenians probably [saying]
(unintelligible), ‘you beaner, you come here and you ruin everything.’ Or the
Hispanics [saying], “you are Armenians. You guys come here; you guys don’t even
do anything.” A female Latino staff member explained:
I don’t think it has anything to do with that. It’s just, I think the whole thing
is because they don’t see each other as just being students, I mean just being.
They still see each other as, ‘Okay, he’s an Armenian and I’m a Latino.’
Although age was not deemed a reason for conflicts between Armenian and
Latino students, immaturity was perceived as a reason. Additionally, hatred between
Armenian and Latinos was mentioned as an ongoing concern, with the potential to
spark volatile conflicts.
Immigration and Fights
Respondents clearly noted that length of time since immigration was not a
factor in ethnic conflicts and did not feel that it had an effect on school violence.
75
This was seen in Latinos, females in both groups, and male Armenian and male
Latino students. Both male and female Armenians and female Latino staff members
believed that length of time since immigration was not a cause. Additionally, male
and female Armenian parents, as well as male Latino parents, did not feel that length
of time since immigration was a factor in conflicts. Only female Latino parents saw
immigration as a factor.
A male Latino student stated, No, not really. It doesn’t make a difference . . .
if you’ve been here for a day or year.” A female Latino staff member explained,
“Immigration status, I don’t think so much because, um, I think the majority of the
students here are basically . . . coming from their countries and its all new to them.”
A female Armenian staff member brought up an interesting point about the
adaptability of Armenians. When asked if immigration mattered in fights, she stated:
To me, I don’t think it’s a variable as long as the person is well educated then
that should not be a reason for fights because they’ll know more about the
person opposite them. Armenians in general are more international. They are
able to adopt any country’s customs and adjust to it very easily. I’m
perplexed as to why these fights happen.
Immigration, including length of time in the U.S. and degree of acculturation,
was not seen as a reason for ethnic conflict. This was surprising because one might
assume that newcomers would be more reserved and guarded, given that they are in
an unfamiliar environment.
76
Research Question 3
Three themes emerged in regard to this research question. These themes are
how schools try to stop conflict, views on stopping conflict, and recommendations
for stopping conflict.
How Schools Try to Stop Conflict
The most common responses concerned the steps that schools were taking to
stop ethnic conflicts, including supervision of students and different forms of
suspension. An equal number of male and female Armenians felt that supervision
was the key to stopping ethnic conflicts. This theme was also found among students.
Male Armenian students, more than female Armenian students, discussed the
importance of supervision, while equal numbers of male and female Latino students
mentioned supervision. Among the staff member, neither female Armenian staff or
male Latino staff members addressed this issue, but male Armenian staff members
did address it, although more so than female Latino staff members. Parents had the
lowest number of responses to this question, with both Armenian and female Latino
parents indicating the usefulness of supervision.
Most participants wanted an increase in supervision. Before and after school,
and during lunch and nutrition, staff members are usually present and carrying two-
way radios. Participants wanted a more proactive approach that involved spotting or
quelling potential sparks. A female Latino parent stated, “Uh, all gates and doors are
secured and trespassers are not in and out. Uh, there are coordinators and security
who are going around and they are watching.” An Armenian staff member stated,
77
“We try to be visual. We try to be out there during, in the quad and we try to . . . be
proactive about it as much as possible.” A male Latino student stated:
My school is trying you know to, um, prevent any kind of trouble . . . by
putting more police officers to walk around, to check people, and also they
are putting teachers and counselors. They have been walking around the
school, checking that they don’t get into fights and if they see, you know, a
circle around of people, they go and check if you know anything is wrong.
Finally, a female Latino staff member stated, “Just more supervision with the kids.”
Participants cited differing forms of suspension as the action taken by school
officials. Suspensions were “in-house,” which meant that students would not go to
their classes, but would remain in the dean’s office. Other students served “ATS”
(Alternative to Suspension), which meant that students would receive an alternate
punishment, such as attending Saturday detention, as a way to avoid being
suspended. When asked what her school does to stop the fights, one female
Armenian student noted, “Watching over us at snack and lunch. Giving detention,
ATS, and all that. Saturday School. In-house suspension.”
Most suspensions involved students remaining at home for a specified
number of days. They could only return after their parents participated in a
conference. A female Armenian staff member stated, “After the fights, of course,
there were meetings and suspensions,” while a male Armenian student noted,
“Whenever there was a fight, a lot of people would get suspended.” Another male
Armenian student explained, “They’ve been suspending people, but, you know, they
don’t care.” Even when schools had an option of choosing other disciplinary
78
consequences, suspension seemed to be the most popular, but an ineffective, form of
discipline.
Schools used supervision and suspension to stop conflicts between students.
It was the intent of school officials, through supervision, to spot and defuse situations
that could escalate. Suspensions garnered criticism by respondents because they felt
that they were “after the fact” reactions and that it was better to use preventive
methods.
Views on Stopping Conflict
Most commonly, participants stated that they were never asked to provide
their opinions about or insights into the development of a program to help reduce or
prevent ethnic conflict. Nevertheless, they were eager to participate in any actions
that would help stop such conflicts.
This theme was found among Armenians and females, although more than
among males, as well as among students. Armenian and male Latino students gave
this response with the same frequency. This theme was found among Armenian and
female Latino students more than among their male counterparts. In regard to staff
members, male and female Armenian staff equally addressed this issue, more than
did male Latino staff members, but female Latino staff members did not address this
question. With regard to parents, only Armenians and female Latinos responded;
male Latino parents did not. A male Armenian staff member stated, “I really haven’t
had any input in terms of stopping the violence between different ethnic groups. No
one’s really inquired or asked for my opinion or my help.” A female Latino student
79
noted, “Nobody’s ever asked me that.” She added that she’d not heard anyone
asking students for their input, stating, “Not that I know; they haven’t asked the
students.”
Some participants indicated that they were waiting for an invitation to
become involved. A female Armenian student stated, “No, I have not been
approached . . .yet,” sounding hopeful. A female Armenian staff member explained,
“Uh, no, I’m sorry to say no because I wasn’t given the opportunity yet.” One
student stated that he would be glad to help, if he were asked. A female Armenian
student stated, “Um, no. The school hasn’t asked me to do anything thus far. But if
they did, then I could probably get involved and help out. Get my friends to join and
help out.” In regard to his involvement, a male Armenian psychologist stated, “I
would say moderate input. As an Armenian psychologist, my voice will be heard by
the school administration. Unfortunately, I have not been approached for this issue
by the school administration.”
Opportunities for garnering input by students, staff, and parents are being
overlooked by school administrators. Students who are the source of conflicts and
staff who work directly with students must be given the opportunity to express their
opinions about the cause of ethnic conflict and to offer possible solutions.
Recommendations for Stopping Conflict
The most common response regarding what students could do to stop conflict
was to engage themselves in activities that teach them about each other’s ethnicity.
This theme was seen among Latinos and males, as well as among staff, who felt that
80
activities, which engaged students in ethnic-building relationships, were needed.
Students and parents were of the same opinion. Among students, only male Latino
students indicated that activities were needed to learn about ethnicity and culture.
Not a single male or female Armenian student or female Latino student addressed
this issue. All staff members, Armenian and Latino, male and female, were equally
vocal in their recommendation for activities. In regard to parents, no male Armenian
parents responded, while female Armenian and female Latino parents responded
with equal frequency.
When engaging in activities, students become better educated about another
group’s culture, language, history, and traditions. A female Latino staff member
stated:
I think it’s really important that every single school . . . have an ethnic day or
week where we can celebrate each different culture that is here at the school
to be represented. Meaning, like, one day it will be Armenian Day and
students can come in and do a show on ethnic dances and ethnic clothing,
food, music, and have the parents involved in that. Um, I think they should
do it for Latinos, for the Filipino group that we have here, for different types
of races . . . the students would be involved in it, obviously. They’re the ones
performing and you know bringing food. They can sell food as fundraisers
and stuff.
A female Armenian staff member stated, “Uh, have more cultural events, uh,
between these two students, Latinos and Armenians. Having them come together, uh,
create events, organize events together, uh, that will help.” A male Latino student
indicated that students should “interact with each other and learn their ethnicity” and
another male Latino student stated:
Students could most like clubs. I’d say clubs, most likely. Clubs that make
Armenians and Latinos learn about each other about their cultural
81
background, about what they go through. Like a normal life for a Latino or a
normal life for an Armenian.
Others suggested non-cultural activities to promote understanding of each
other’s culture. A male Armenian staff member stated, “Establish an alternative
sense of identity within the school by challenging the students to participate in
Humanities Olympiads.” By enrolling students in competitive activities on the same
team, they will not only have to rely on each other and work together to win, but they
also will be in a position to forge meaningful and lasting friendships. A male Latino
parent explained, “Do some type of events so that Armenians and Latinos could be
together and so that their cultures could mix.” Similarly, a female Armenian parent
stated, “Just bring them together. Just bring them together and put them on tasks. If
we’re talking about students, give them a goal that they can accomplish only when
they’re together.” The overwhelming response to stopping ethnic conflict was to
engage Armenian and Latino students in activities that bring them together and teach
them about each other’s cultures.
Another common response among staff members was the importance of
teaching Armenian and Latino students about each other’s culture, similar to what
students stated. Other recommendations included being more tolerant, sensitive to
different ethnicities and cultures, and understanding. Other staff recommendations
included being quicker and more proactive when responding to and attempting to
stop ethnic conflict, as well as structuring lessons that engage students in meaningful
dialogue. Finally, assemblies were a topic of concern for some, who felt that they
were an ineffective method of curbing ethnic conflict.
82
Parents, staff, and students were equally clear about wanting to see the
teaching of culture in schools. Female Armenian students felt that cultural lessons
would help ease ethnic tensions, but only one female Latino student gave this
response. No male Latino students addressed this issue. None of the male or female
Armenian staff members responded, while male and female Latino staff members
responded with equal frequency. Among parents, more female than male Armenian
parents felt that cultural lessons were needed and an equal number of male and
female Latino parents felt the same way.
In addition to a desire that students participate in “activities where they
intermingle,” as stated by a female Armenian parent, and “shows on ‘Spirit Friday’
to unite everyone,” as stated by a male Armenian student, there also was an emphasis
on changing the attitude of staff, so as to be more accepting and understanding of
students’ ethnic cultures. “Staff should be tolerant,” according to a male Latino staff
member. Another male Latino staff member stated, “I think that teachers [should]
become aware, [have a] chance for them to project these feelings of understanding to
the students themselves.” When discussing the merits of having an ethnic day or
week, a female Latino staff member stated, “I think it would be um beneficial to
everyone because even the staff . . . has more of a Caucasian population, Anglo, and
I think we can all learn from all the minority groups that we have.”
Frustrations were expressed at the lax attitudes, slow progress, and
thoughtless action when tackling ethnic conflict. A male Latino staff member stated,
“I think we need to be more proactive because I think, right now, we’re taking a very
83
passive approach to this situation.” A female Armenian student emphatically stated,
“The staff could probably stop lecturing us on it and actually do something about it.
Get out there and encourage it, instead of trying to break apart the fight when they
actually happen.” Another female Armenian student expressed her dissatisfaction,
stating:
Well, uh, since last year, there were a number of fight outbreaks . . . I think
there were about 10 fights in, during finals week, and our school, we just had
an assembly. We had a few guest speakers come to the assembly and they
just speak with us a lot about putting an end to the racial tension but as far as
action being taken, I haven’t seen much.
A male Latino staff member explained:
Well, I think there is a lot that we should be doing now. Not just with those
two communities, but in general. I think, I don’t think you can build tolerance
unless you get to know people. In order for that to happen, there’s got to be a
structure for it. You can’t just throw people in the classroom and expect them
to, uh, get to know each other.
Students and staff criticized the solely reactionary attitude of school
administration and wanted them to be proactive to unite students and teach cultural
understanding. Participants had conflicting opinions about assemblies. A female
Armenian student stated, “Well, uh, as I said earlier, we had a few assemblies telling
us, with guest speakers and stuff like that. But, um, I don’t really know if that stuff
helps.” However, a female Latino staff member and a female Armenian student
disagreed. They wanted “guest speakers come in and talk, maybe have an assembly
open up with guest speakers.”
Participants wanted staff to structure discussions and design lesson plans
that generate an interest in learning about the other’s culture. They felt that organized
84
dialogue should include more communication between students and educators (male
Latino staff member), as well as teach them about cultural similarities, e.g.,
“Armenian Christmas” and “Dia de los Reyes” (female Latino staff member), have
open group discussions (female Latino staff member), and pair up Armenian and
Latino faculty to get students to talk with each other (female Armenian student).
Also recommended were character education and social skills lessons that include
learning how to get along and tolerating differences (female Armenian parent),
promoting tolerance among teens (female Latino parent), teaching students unity and
respect (female Armenian parent), holding peer pressure classes to talk about
problems (male Armenian student), having more culturally oriented assignments
(male Latino staff member), encouraging students to work together with different
partners to understand each other (male Latino parent), and promoting activities,
clubs, and events that Armenians and Latinos could do together so that the cultures
could mix (female Armenian student and male Latino parent).
In regard to what parents could do to stop ethnic conflicts in school, the most
common response was communicating with their children, which was expressed by
all females. Students also recommended parent-child communication. Female
Armenian students mentioned this more often than did male Armenian students, but
male and female Latino students mentioned this equally. Male and female Armenian
parents were equally vocal about communication as a way for parents to help stop
conflicts. However, more female Latino parents felt positively about communication
than did male Latino parents.
85
The responses made it clear that families needed to engage in dialogue. A
strong emphasis was placed on the teaching and practicing of respect. A female
Armenian student stated, “Uh, the parents should teach their children to respect each
other because a lot of students, they don’t respect each other. So respect, definitely.”
An female Armenian staff member stated, “Families [should] teach their kids to be
more respectful, and a female Armenian parent explained, “Families need to instruct
their children, to teach them very early on to be respectful.”
Parents also needed to focus their communication on tolerance and
acceptance of other cultures as a means to combat racism and hatred. A female
Armenian student stated, “And the families, the parents should also talk to their
children, tell them what is right and what is wrong and not to be racist and like all
other races because we’re not different after all.” A female Latino student similarly
stated, “Well, tell their kids not to be racist and like everybody as a human being.
They shouldn’t be like differences between them.”
Adult participants were concerned about children’s growing to hate others
and made a point that parents need to prevent this. A male Latino parent noted that
parents can prevent fights by “helping students avoid hatred towards the different
race.” A male Latino stated, “Don’t make them dislike anybody just for their
ethnicity. Like they say, don’t judge a book by its cover. Get to know someone
before you say something. According to a female Latino parent, parents needed to
“have talks with their children about the acceptance of other cultures.” A male
Armenian student stated:
86
Parents, have to, have to talk about it at home . . . how to be with other
cultures and try to show them that they’re in other culture themselves and
they’re no different from everyone else as in Armenian families and Hispanic
families.
One female Armenian emphatically stated:
And, the families, we could, each family could raise their children without
brainwashing them to think that another, that they’re better than another
culture. So, just the parents would raise the children basically with tolerance
for other cultures and races.
Finally, one male Armenian parent beautifully stated his feelings:
It is parents’ job to somehow soften their child, so he or she would not
become a fighter in school. Parents are at some point responsible for planting
love towards other nationalities in their child’s heart, if the child grows with
the idea that everyone is the same, he or she will not wish to hurt others. I
think that the racist view of parents and environment are the major factors of
hatred between any two cultures. In my opinion, parents should be more
attentive towards their child’s personality as he or she grows up.
Many solutions were proposed for stopping ethnic conflict. Students
suggested engagement in culture-learning activities as well as non-cultural activities
to promote understanding and togetherness. Staff members proposed teaching other
cultures to students and wanted to see the administration become more proactive.
Finally, parents understood the importance of communicating to their children the
need to be tolerant, considerate, and loving of other people.
87
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Tension between students of Armenian and Latino ethnic backgrounds has
caused havoc and misery for Southern California schools and families. Violence
between the two groups has resulted in the death of a Latino student and fear in the
surrounding communities, which has escalated the tension between Armenian and
Latino neighbors. To better understand the cause of such ethnic tension, this study
sought to address the following questions:
1. What are student, staff, and parent perceptions of the reasons for recent
incidents of violence between Armenian and Latino students on or near their school
campuses?
2. To what extent are the explanations for ethnic violence the same within
and between Armenian and Latino groups? Do age, gender, immigration status, and
other variables play a significant role in making a difference in how respondents
describe the conflict?
3. How can the views of youth, school staff, and parents inform policy and
help develop better prevention practices?
This chapter presents a summary of the findings, which are then discussed in
view of the literature. The implications, limitations of the study, and
recommendations for future research are then presented, followed by the conclusion.
88
Summary of the Findings
Several significant findings emerged. First, participants perceived that both
Armenians and Latinos thought they were better than the other. Second, participants
believed that Latinos provoked Armenian males and females, spoke unfavorably
about them, and cursed in front of Armenian females. Third, participants felt that
Armenians belittled Latinos, showed off, were racist, and were “financial
exhibitionists.” Fourth, participants suggested that parents needed to communicate
with their children about being tolerant and accepting of other cultures. Finally,
participants called for all students to engage in more culture-learning and
relationship-shaping activities as means to preventing ethnic conflict. They also felt
that schools needed to be more proactive in regard to conflicts and to offer events
that promote cultural awareness.
Discussion
As noted above, both Armenians and Latinos thought they were better than
the other. This could be understood as a case of increased or intense identity. Jaret
and Reitzes (1999) noted that identity increases are due to immigration, mixed
marriages, and conflict. They found that Whites develop an identity when they feel
they are “in the minority.” Because the Armenians in this study lived in a
predominantly Latino area, the findings of Jaret and Reitzes are potentially
applicable.
Shrake and Rhee (2004) found that adolescents with high levels of Korean
identity and positive attitudes towards other ethnic groups had fewer problem
89
behaviors. In this study, both Armenians and Latinos had good self-identities, but
their attitudes toward other ethnic groups were not positive. Latinos provoked
Armenian males and females, spoke unfavorably about them, and cursed in front of
Armenian females. Additionally, Armenians belittled Latinos, showed off, were
racist, and were “financial exhibitionists.” It should be noted, however, that not all
participants shared these views. This is in keeping with Ogbu (1998), who stated,
“not all members of a minority group believe the same thing or behave the same
way” (p. 168).
Phinney (as cited in Shrake & Rhee, 2004) reported that high levels of ethnic
identity lead to a strong sense of self and a self-concept as an ethnic group member.
In this study, Armenians and Latinos tended to think they were better than the other,
which some might interpret as being due to having self-concept of oneself as an
ethnic group member.
This strong ethnic self-concept also was studied by Cross (1994) in his
research on African-American/Black adolescents and the development of their racial
self-identification. His five-stage model includes the pre-encounter, encounter,
immersion-emersion, internalization, and internalization-commitment stages. Of
these five stages, the Armenian and Latino students in this study appear to be in the
“immersion-emersion” stage. According to Cross, immersion entails a conversion to
patterns of thought, dress, action, and speech while emersion entails controlling
emotions through the positive interactions of role models. In this regard, these youth
90
need positive role models, who will move them away from viewing themselves as
locked in “in groups” or “out groups,” which perpetuate dislike, fear, and violence.
Participants perceived that Latinos provoked Armenian males and females,
spoke unfavorably about them, and cursed in front of Armenian females. To
understand conflict, Gould (1999) spoke of the binding of relationships. Participants
referred to Armenians as “tight knit,” “clingy,” and “united,” which is a product of
their history. Due to the geopolitical location of Armenia in the Caucasus and
centuries-long attempts by neighboring nations wanting to conquer it, Armenians are
tightly bound to each other. Gould stated, “individuals benefit from group life in part
because membership offers protection against predation” (p. 359). As such, when
Armenian students feel threatened, they stand up for themselves.
Participants felt that Armenians belittled Latinos, showed off, were racist,
and were “financial exhibitionists.” Messner and Rosenfeld (as cited in Kramer,
2000) discussed how economics could interfere with familial forces of socialization.
The focus on money creates aggressive, selfish, and economically driven individuals,
which is how the Latinos viewed the Armenians. Simpson and Yinger (as cited in
Bakalian, 1993) even described newly arrived Armenians as being “too ambitious”
(p. 101).
Jaret and Reitzes (1999) believe that intergroup competition is one impetus
for increased or intense identities. They found that Whites became conscious of their
self-identities when they felt they were in the minority. Armenians, who are
91
considered White, also develop this self-identity when they are in the minority, and
this self-identity can be perceived as “superiority” and “racism” by Latinos.
For Ogbu (1998), the word “minority” has a special meaning. He considers a
population “a minority if it occupies some form of subordinate power position in
relation to another population within the same country or society” (p. 162). Thus,
both Armenians and Latinos may be considered “minorities,” as they are in
competition for power. Both groups also may be classified, according to Obgu, as
“voluntary immigrants,” ones who willingly moved to the U.S. for better
opportunities. Ironically, Latinos also could be considered “involuntary minorities,”
given that they are “people who have been conquered, colonized, or enslaved” (p.
165).
Participants suggested that parents need to communicate with their children
about being tolerant and accepting of other cultures. Based on the research of
Phinney et al. (1997), who found that contact with other racial/ethnic-grouped
children at a young age results in positive intergroup attitudes, one could assume that
Armenians and Latinos involved in violent conflicts never associated with each other
when they were young. Additionally, although the relationship between Armenians
and Latinos has improved over the years, overall, they still disliked each other.
Bakalian (1993) explained the vigilant stance that Armenian parents take in
rearing their children. However, Bakalian did not mention whether these parents
teach the tolerance and acceptance of other cultures. Additionally, although Latino
92
parents were perceived as more lenient, we also do not know whether they taught
their children tolerance.
Social bond theory is relevant in regard to the recommendation for better
communication between parents and their children. De Li (1999) presented four
elements of social bonding: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. One
would hope that, if these four elements are present in a parent/child relationship, they
would have a moderating effect on conflict, and delinquency should be minimal or
non-existent. Because Armenian and Latino student violence does exist, we can
assume that communication and bonding need to be strengthened. In keeping with
this assumption, the theory of differential association posits that “parental attachment
is important because it insulates adolescents from a delinquent-peer environment”
(Liska & Reed, 1985, p. 548).
In their study of alienation and its effects on students, Brown et al. (2003)
found that previously arrived immigrants rejected newly arrived immigrants. In the
present study, however, this was not found to be the case. The majority of
participants felt that these students were “all in the same boat.”
Implications
This study was conducted to understand and make a positive difference in the
lives of Armenian and Latino students, the schools they attend, their families, and
their communities. No research has been conducted regarding the violence between
these ethnic groups. and it the researcher’s hope to contribute to a growing body of
literature about Armenian and Latino conflicts. Students, parents, school officials,
93
and police officers will be able to use the findings from this study to create safe
environments and positive relationships between Armenian and Latino students.
Limitations of the Study
The main limitation of the study was that the generalizability of the findings
was limited due to the geographic delimitations of the study. The relationship
between Armenians and Latinos may differ in other geographic areas. Moreover,
only ethnic differences were taken into consideration. Geographic or political
variation was not taken into account. Some Armenian participants were born in the
U.S., while others came from countries such as Armenia, Russia, Lebanon, Iran, and
Bulgaria. Similarly, some Latino participants were born in the U.S., while others
came from countries such as Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Argentina, and Chile.
Additionally, religious differences were not taken into consideration. Most
Armenians are members of the Mother Church in Armenia (Armenian Apostolic),
but some may have been members of the Armenian Protestant or Armenian Catholic
Church. Others may not have affiliated with any religion. The same could be said of
Latino participants, who although generally affiliate with the Roman Catholic
Church, may have been members of a Protestant Church or even non-church goers.
Recommendations for Future Research
Based on the limitations of the study, future research should include a larger
and more geographically diverse sample to see whether the results of this study are
supported in other communities in which Armenians and Latinos live side by side.
Future research also should include more detailed demographic information from
94
participants, including country of origin and religion, to determine the effect of these
variables on their perspectives. Additionally, it would be useful to expand this
research to include the relationships between and perceptions of other ethnic groups
who experience conflict.
Conclusion
The murder of Raul Aguirre on Cinco De Mayo 2000 was a tragic event for
his family, the families of the three murderers, and the community. The purpose of
the study was to gain an understanding of ethnic school violence, particularly that of
Armenian and Latino students, from the perspective of students, staff, and parents. It
was the researcher’s intention that findings from this study would be used in the
decision and policy-making meetings of school officials and heads of family
households to ensure the safety and harmony of our schools and community.
95
REFERENCES
Altounian, J. (2006, March 31). Statistics. Glendale Police Department, Crime
Statistics and Records Bureau, City of Glendale, CA.
Ancis, J. R., Sedlacek, W. E., & Mohr, J. J. (2000). Student perceptions of campus
cultural climate by race. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78(2), 180.
Anderson, T. (2001, March 18). L.A.’s new mob threat: ethnic gangs organizing into
global problems. The Daily News of Los Angeles, p. N1.
Aronson, D. (1976). Ethnicity as a cultural system: An introductory essay. In F.
Henry (Ed.), Ethnicity in the Americas (pp. 13-15). The Hague: Mouton.
Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R., Vinokur, A., & Zeira, A. (2002). Perceptions of
violence and fear of school attendance among junior high school students in
Israel. Social Work Research, 26(2), 71-89.
Bakalian, A. (1993). Armenian-Americans: From being to feeling Armenian. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Barrientos, D. (2005, June 15). 10 students suspended after fight. Glendale News
Press. [Electronic version]. Retrieved June 15, 2005, from
http://www.glendalenewspress.com/front/story/16034p-22315c.html
Bayor, R. (1993). Historical encounters: Intergroup relations in a “nation of nations.”
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530, 14-27.
Bier, J. (1996, December 10). Police link killings to organized crime: so-called
Armenian mafia may be moving into valley from Southern California. Fresno
Bee, p. A1.
Bjorgo, T., Carlsson, Y., & Haaland, T. (2001) Generalisert hat—polariserte
fellesskap: Om konflikter mellom ungdomsmiljoer I en norsk by. NIBRs
Pluss-serie, 4.
Boone, M. (1994, May). Community stability and school conflict: The influence of
three socioeconomic factors. Paper presented at the meeting of the Research
Forum of the National Rural Education Association,. Tuscaloosa, AL.
Brener, N. D., Simon, T. R., Krug, E. G., & Lowry, R. (1999). Recent trends in
violence-related behaviors among high school students in the United States.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 281(5), 440-446.
96
Brown, M. R., Higgins, K., Hong, E., Pierce, T., & Thoma, C. (2003). Secondary
students’ perceptions of school life with regard to alienation: The effects of
disability, gender and race. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(4), 227-238.
California Council for the Humanities. (2005) California story fund: Our Stories—
Glendale Human Relations Coalition. Retrieved May 29, 2006, from
http://www.calhum.org/programs/story_our_stories.htm
California Department of Finance. (1995). Legal foreign immigration to California:
Size and characteristics of the flow according to the INS statistics for 1993.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
California State University, Northridge. (2000). Grant High School project:
Department of communication studies. Retrieved on May 29, 2006, from
http://www.csun.edu/communicationstudies/grant/index.htm
Calkins, R. (1994, December 30). Jeweler’s murder linked to crime ring. Fresno Bee,
p. A1.
Cartland, J., Henry, D. B., & Ruch-Ross, H. S. (2003). Feeling at home in one’s
school: A first look at a new measure. Adolescence, 38(150), 305-319.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2005). Youth violence, Overview-
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Retrieved May 13, 2005,
from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/yvoverview.htm
Central Intelligence Agency. (2006). The world factbook. Retrieved June 14, 2006,
from http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/am.html#People
Cohen, J. (1993). Constructing race at an urban high school: In their minds, their
mouths, their hearts. In L. Weis & M. Fine (Eds.), Beyond silenced voices:
Class, race, and gender in United States schools (pp. 289-308). Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Condon, L. (1999, October 16). Jury can’t reach verdict in Armenian mafia case. The
Daily News of Los Angeles, p. 3.
Cross, W. (1994). Nigrescence theory: Historical and explanatory notes. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 44, 119-123.
Cullen, F. T. 1994. Social support as an organizing concept for criminology:
Presidential address to the academy of criminal justice sciences. Justice
Quarterly, 11, 527-559.
De Li, S. (1999). Social control, delinquency, and youth status achievement: A
developmental approach. Sociological Perspectives, 42(2), 305-324.
97
Dhilawala, S. (1997). Armenia. Tarrytown, NY: Marshall Cavendish Corporation.
Duncan, O. D. (1939). The wider phases of culture conflicts. Journal of Educational
Sociology, 12(8), 457-462.
Everett, S. A., & Price, J. H. (1997). Teachers’ perceptions of violence in the public
schools: The MetLife survey. American Journal of Health Behavior, 21(3),
178-186.
Ferdman, B. M. (1990) Literacy and cultural identity. Harvard Education Review,
60, 181-204.
Foster, A., & Fox, S. (2000, May 6). Glendale student is killed. Los Angeles Times,
p. B1.
Furlong, M., & Morrison, G. (2000). The school in school violence: Definitions and
facts. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(2), 71-82.
Gettleman, J., & Condon, L. (2000, May 7). Glendale shaken by slaying of student.
Los Angeles Times, p. B1.
Getrue, E. (1996, May 13). Russian mafia. City News Service, pp. 5-8.
Gould, R. (1999). Collective violence and group solidarity: Evidence from a feuding
society. American Sociological Review, 64(3), 356.
Henze, R. (1999). Curricular approaches to developing positive interethnic relations.
The Journal of Negro Education, 68(4), 529.
Hintz, M. (2004). Armenia: Enchantment of the world. Danbury, CT: Scholastic
Library.
Huberman, M., & Miles, M. (2002). The qualitative researcher's companion: Classic
and contemporary readings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Iredale, R., & Fox, C. (1997). The impact of immigration on school education in
New South Wales, Australia. IMR, 31(3), 655-669.
Jaasma, M. A. (2001, February). Sixth graders speak out: Troublesome intercultural
encounters. Paper presented at the meeting of the Annual Meeting of the
Western States Communication Association. Coeur d'Alene, ID.
Jaret, C., & Reitzes, D. (1999). The importance of racial-ethnic identity and social
setting for blacks, whites, and multiracials. Sociological Perspectives, 42(4),
711-737.
98
Kasbarian, L. (1998). Armenia: A rugged land, an enduring people. Parsippany, NJ:
Dillon.
Katz, A. (1999). Keepin’ it real: Personalizing school experiences for diverse
learners to create harmony and minimize interethnic conflict. Journal of
Negro Education, 68(4), 496-510.
Katz, S. R. (1996). Where the streets cross the classroom: A study of Latino
students’ perspectives on cultural identity in city schools and neighborhood
gangs. The Bilingual Research Journal, 20(3 & 4), 603-631.
Kramer, R. C. (2000). Poverty, inequality, and youth violence. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 567(1), 123-139.
Krikorian, M. (1997, August 17). Violent gang is a stain on a proud ethnic
community. Los Angeles Times (Home edition), p. 1.
Krug E. G., Dahlberg L. L., Mercy J. A., Zwi, A. B., Lozano, R. (Eds.). (2004).
World report on violence and health [Serial online]. Retrieved May 11, 2006,
from
www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/wrvh1/en
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy.
American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Liska, A. E., & Reed, M. D. (1985). Ties to conventional institutions and
delinquency: Estimating reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review,
50(4), 547-560.
Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and
predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In M. Tonry & N.
Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice (Vol. 7). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Mateu-Gelabert, P. (2002). Dreams, gangs, and guns: The interplay between
adolescent violence and immigration in a New York City neighborhood. New
York: Vera Institute of Justice.
Matsueda, R. L., & Heimer, K. (1987). Race, family structure, and delinquency: A
test of differential association and social control theories. American
Sociological Review, 52(6), 826-840.
McNulty, T., & Bellair, P. (2003). Explaining racial and ethnic differences in serious
adolescent violent behavior. Criminology, 41(3), 709-748.
99
Meier, R. (1982). Perspectives on the concept of social control. Annual Review of
Sociology, 8, 35-55.
Mirak, R. 1983. Torn between two lands: Armenians in America, 1890 to World War
I. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
National Broadcasting Company. (2005, March 8). High school locked down
following fight. [Television broadcast]. Retrieved May 28, 2005, from
NBC4.TV: http://www.nbc4.tv/education/4265878/detail.html
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2005). Youth violence:
Overview. Retrieved May 21, 2005, from
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/yvoverview.htm
Norrid-Lacey, B., & Spencer, D. A. (1999, April). Experiences of Latino Immigrant
students at an urban high school. Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Educational Research Association. Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Ogbu, J. U. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological
theory of school performance with some implications for education.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.
Okazawa-Rey, M., & Wong, M. (1997). Organizing in communities of color:
Addressing interethnic conflicts. Social Justice, 24(1), 24.
Ordjanian, A.V. (1991). Children of Ararat: Political economy and ideology at an
Armenian ethnic school in the United States. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 52, 02A.
Park, K. (1996). Use and abuse of race and culture: Black-Korean tension in
America. American Anthropologist, 98(3), 492-499.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2
nd
ed.).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pelisek, C., & Rappleye, C. (2002, February 22-28). Pet shop murder. LA Weekly,
pp. 32, 39.
Pfeiffer, C. (2000). The impoverishment of the lower classes is increasing juvenile
aggressivity. European Education, 32(1), 95-99.
Phinney, J. S., Ferguson, D. L., & Tate, J. D. (1997). Intergroup attitudes among
ethnic minority adolescents: A causal model. Child Development, 68(5), 955-
969.
100
Phinney, J. S., Romero, I., Nava, M., & Huang, D. (2001). The role of language,
parents, and peers in ethnic identity among adolescents in immigrant
families. Journal of Youth and Adolescents, 30(2), 135-153.
Pound, R. (1942). Social control through law. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Rodriguez, R. (1994). An unnecessary conflict: Black/Latino relations. Black Issues
in Higher Education, 11(16), 40.
Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (1988). Intercultural communications: A reader (5
th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Sauerwein, K. (1999, October 23). Ethnic tensions blamed for Grant High melee. Los
Angeles Times, p. B1.
Schwartz, A. E., & Gershberg, A. I. (2001). Immigrants and education: Evidence
from New York City. Washington, DC: National Tax Association.
Schiller, B. M. (1969). Racial conflict and delinquency: A theoretical approach.
Phylon, 30(3), 261-271.
Shrake, E., & Rhee, S. (2004). Ethnic identity as a predictor of problem behaviors
among Korean American adolescents. Adolescence, 39(155), 601-622.
Shuster, B., & Berger, L. (1994, October 19). Latino-Armenian friction at school
sparks violence. Los Angeles Times (Home edition), p. 3.
Singleton, J. (1977). Education and ethnicity. Comparative Education Review,
21(2/3), 329-344.
Small, M., & Tetrick, K. D. (2001). School violence: An overview. Juvenile Justice,
VIII(1), 3.
St. Clair, D. (1957). Some observations on interethnic conflict as one type of
intergroup Conflict. Conflict Resolution, 1(2), 155-178.
Steinberg, A., Brooks, J., & Remtulla, T. (2003). Youth hate crimes: Identification,
prevention, and intervention. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(5),
979-989.
Stevens, L., Lynn, C., & Glass, R. (2001). Youth violence in schools. The Journal of
the American Medical Association, 286(21), 2766.
Stewart, E. A. (2003). School social bonds, school climate, and school misbehavior:
A multilevel analysis. Justice Quarterly, 20(3), 575.
101
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tartakovsky, E., & Mirsky, J. (2001). Bullying gangs among immigrant adolescents
from the former Soviet Union in Israel. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
16(3), 247-265.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000a). US Census 2000. Retrieved May 29, 2006, from
www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/language3.pdf
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000b). US census 2000. Retrieved May 30, 2006, from
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/ancestry/Armenian.txt
U.S. English, Inc. (2005). Retrieved May 22, 2005, from http://www.us-
english.org/foundation/research/lia/languages/armenian.pdf
Vazsonyi, A. T., & Pickering, L. E. (2003). The importance of family and school
domains in adolescent deviance: African American and Caucasian youth.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32(2), 115.
Walker, E. W. (1999). Conflict in the house: Interethnic conflict as change agent,
change as conflict instigator. The Journal of Negro Education, 68(4), 486-
495.
Warner, B. D., & Rountree, P. W. (1997). Local social ties in a community and
crime model: Questioning the systemic nature of informal social control.
Social Problems, 44(4), 520-536.
We Care For Youth, Inc. (1991). Retrieved May 29, 2006, from
http://www.wecareforyouth.com/index.php
Welsh, W. N., Stokes, R., & Greene, J. R. (2000). A macro-level model of school
disorder. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37(3), 243-283.
Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. New York: Oxford University Press.
Willinsky, J., & Thomas, L. (1997). Students’ perceptions of racial and ethnic
tensions in Pacific region schools. Canadian Journal of Education, 22(4),
361.
Zaionchkovskaya, Z. (1996, April). Soviet migration. Paper presented at the meeting
of the Minsk Conference. Minsk, Belarus.
102
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Research Question 1
What are student, staff, and parent perceptions of the reasons for recent
incidents of violence between Armenian and Latino students on or near their school
campuses?
1. I’ve heard a lot of stories about the conflicts between Armenians and
Latinos at your school. Tell me about their relationship here at your
school.
2. What do you know about Armenian families? What do you know about
Latino families?
3. If you only read or heard the title of an article or story called something
like, “Fights erupt between Armenians and Latino high school students,”
without reading the article, who would you say started the fight? Why?
Research Question 2
To what extent are the explanations for ethnic violence the same within and
between Armenian and Latino groups? Do age, gender, immigration status, and other
variables play a significant role in making a difference in how respondents describe
the conflict?
1. (To Armenian student and parent participant) What do you think
Armenians would say is the reason/are the reasons for ethnic conflict(s)
with Latinos?
(To Latino student and parent participant) What do you think Latinos
would say is the reason/are the reasons for ethnic conflict(s) with
Armenians?
(To staff participant) What do you think Armenians would say is the
reason/are the reasons for ethnic conflict(s) with Latinos?
103
(To staff participant) What do you think Latinos would say is the
reason/are the reasons for ethnic conflict(s) with Armenians?
2. (To Armenian student and parent participant) What do you think Latinos
would say is the reason/are the reasons for ethnic conflict(s) with
Armenians?
(To Latino student and parent participant) What do you think Armenians
would say is the reason/are the reasons for conflict(s) with Latinos?
3. Do you think the fights happen because of the age and/or immigration
status of students? Please explain why or why not.
Research Question 3
How can the views of youth, school staff, and parents inform policy and help
develop better prevention practices?
1. What is your school doing to stop ethnic conflicts?
2. How much input do you have in coming up with ways to stop ethnic
conflicts?
3. What could students, staff, and/or families do to stop ethnic conflicts?
104
APPENDIX B: PROGRAMS AND CURRICULA ON ETHNIC
CONFLICT AND RESOLUTION
We Care For Youth, Inc (www.wecareforyouth.org)
We Care for Youth (WCFY) is a California not-for-profit (501(c)(3)) organization.
Since 1991, WCFY has provided mentoring, character education, leadership training,
organizational management training, pre-employment readiness training, event
planning, entrepreneurial instruction and activities, and peace training and activities
to more than 6000 youth.
Communicating Common Ground (www.csun.edu/coms/grant/index.htm)
The Department of Communication Studies at California State University,
Northridge (CSUN) was selected to participate in a nationally funded educational
initiative to address hate speech and racially based violence in our nation’s schools.
Communicating Common Ground, sponsored by the Southern Poverty Law Center,
the National Communication Association, Campus Compact, and American
Association of Higher Education involves 30 educational sites nationwide. The
initiative supports a pilot partnership between the Department of Communication
Studies (CSUN) and Grant High School to develop a school environment where the
benefits of a cultural diverse community are actively fostered.
Museum of Tolerance (www.museumoftolerance.com)
The Museum of Tolerance, the Center’s educational arm, founded in 1993,
challenges visitors to confront bigotry and racism and to understand the Holocaust in
both historic and contemporary contexts. Some of the programs sponsored by the
Museum include Tools for Tolerance, Teaching Steps to Tolerance, Task Force
Against Hate, National Institute Against Hate Crimes, and Tools for Tolerance for
Teens.
Making the Peace: A 15-Session Violence Prevention Curriculum for Young People.
By Paul Kivel and Alan Creighton. Designed for high school students. Distributed by
Hunter House Inc., P.O. Box 2914, Alameda, CA 94501-0914. Telephone: (510)
865-5282, Fax: (510) 865-4295.
LA County Human Relations Commission (http://humanrelations.co.la.ca.us/)
As one of the oldest and largest human relations agencies of its kind in the United
States, the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations serves one of the
largest and most diverse populations in the country in addressing the human relations
needs through its commitment to fostering harmonious and equitable intergroup
relations, empowering communities and institutions, and promoting an informed and
inclusive multicultural society.
105
Conflict Resolution Unlimited (www.cruinstitute.org)
Student Mediation Programs for students at elementary, middle, and high school
levels can help create more productive lives. The program is an effective way to
teach anger management, conflict resolution, and basic communication skills to
young people. It is preventive, as it targets high-risk students and helps them develop
self-esteem, as well as new strategies for dealing with conflict including cultural
diversity issues. It includes a team of trainers who practice mediation and who reflect
ethnic, cultural and gender diversity. CRU is located at 845 106th Avenue NE, Suite
109, Bellevue, WA 98004. Telephone: (206) 451-4015, Fax: (206) 451-1477, email:
cru@conflictnet.org
Teaching for Change (www.teachingforchange.org)
Teaching for Change provides teachers and parents with the tools to transform
schools into centers of justice where students learn to read, write, and change the
world.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
In California s public school districts, ethnic conflict between Armenian and Latino students is a growing crisis that has resulted in increased tension and even in death. This study investigated perceptions of individuals across the educational spectrum regarding the causes of such conflict. The inclusion of parents in this study was of particular importance, as they are often ignored or their thoughts considered irrelevant.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The perceptions of cross cultural student violence in an urban school setting
PDF
An investigation of students' perceptions and fears before and after transitioning to middle school
PDF
Marital conflict and parenting: moderating effects of ethnicity and parent sex
PDF
Sexual misconduct against K-12 students: teachers' perceptions of incidents by school
PDF
Teacher perceptions of classroom management practices in public elementary schools
PDF
The effects of peer helping on participants' perceptions of school climate, school connectedness, and school violence
PDF
The relationship between student perceptions of parental expectations, utility value, aptitude and English achievement among Asian American high school students
PDF
Parental involvement and student motivation: A quantitative study of the relationship between student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 5th grade students
PDF
The nature of middle-class Latino/a students' cultural capital in a fifth-grade classroom's reading and writing activities
PDF
Are acculturation and parenting styles related to academic achievement among Latino students?
PDF
The relationship of parental involvement to student academic achievement in Latino middle school students
PDF
Sexual violence prevention on college campus as a Clery Act requirement: perceptions from the field
PDF
The relationship among the nurturance and monitoring dimensions of parenting, academic self-concept, and acculturation, in the academic achievement of Latino college students
PDF
The college selection process of high-achieving Latino students
PDF
Perceptions of inequality: racism, ethnic identity and student development for a master of education degree
PDF
Do the perceptions of the usefulness of academic support services influence ethnically diverse students' help-seeking attitudes and behaviors?
PDF
Factors that contribute to high and low performing Vietnamese American high school students
PDF
The effects of campus friendships and perceptions of racial climates on the sense of belonging among Arab and Muslim community college students
PDF
The influence of parental involvement, self-efficacy, locus of control, and acculturation on academic achievement among Latino high school students
PDF
Connecting parents and schools: examining perceptions and building bridges to a more unified education community
Asset Metadata
Creator
Bedevian, Harry
(author)
Core Title
Student, staff, and parent perceptions of the reasons for ethnic conflict between Armenian and Latino students
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
03/07/2008
Defense Date
11/21/2007
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Armenian,Latino,OAI-PMH Harvest,school violence
Place Name
California
(states),
USA
(countries)
Language
English
Advisor
Astor, Ron Avi (
committee chair
), Escalante, Michael F. (
committee member
), Sundt, Melora A. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
bedevian@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1044
Unique identifier
UC1117632
Identifier
etd-Bedevian-20080307 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-23342 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1044 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Bedevian-20080307.pdf
Dmrecord
23342
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Bedevian, Harry
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
Latino
school violence