Teacher Education, Diversity, and the Prevention of Hate Speech: Ethical and Political Foundations for Inclusive Citizenship

Abstract

This study explores hate speech in educational contexts, focusing on initial teacher training in Chile. It conceptualizes hate speech as a form of expression that promotes violence and exclusion, emphasizing the role of social media in its amplification. Drawing on the theories of Levinas, Arendt, and Žižek, the research highlights the importance of citizenship education in building inclusive and democratic educational environments. A quantitative, descriptive, and correlational design was employed, based on a survey conducted among history pedagogy students at Chilean universities. Using non-probabilistic sampling, the study applied statistical analyses, including Spearman’s correlation and Cronbach’s alpha (0.84), to ensure reliability. Key findings indicate that 51% of participants believe teacher training should explicitly address hate speech, while 70% expect the Ministry of Education to provide institutional support. A strong correlation (0.49) was found between social media usage and the spread of hate speech. Although students recognize the problem, significant resistance remains regarding the inclusion of hate speech and diversity-related content in teacher education programs. The results underscore the urgent need for public policies that integrate diversity, human rights, and critical digital literacy into teacher training, aiming to prevent discrimination and promote ethical and inclusive educational practices.

1. Introduction

Hate speech is understood as expressions that deliberately incite violence through prejudices against individuals or social groups based on identity-related characteristics such as ethnicity, geographical location, religion, sex, gender, and other factors. Thus, hatred is linked to beliefs or practices that attack and/or exclude a group or collective based on their immutable characteristics. Hate-driven activities and expressions are antithetical to pluralism and the application of human rights [1]. Women and all individuals who identify as belonging to diverse communities are among the groups most frequently targeted by hate speech on social media.

The primary audience for this study comprises teacher, trainers, and educators engaged in developing inclusive pedagogical practices within teacher education programs. These stakeholders are positioned at a critical juncture where they can directly influence the attitudes and competencies of future educators, fostering a commitment to addressing hate speech and promoting diversity. The findings underscore the importance of equipping teacher trainers with the necessary tools and frameworks to effectively integrate critical discussions on hate speech, particularly in relation to gender, ethnicity, and digital media. By highlighting these dimensions, the study not only informs pedagogical approaches but also reinforces the need for educators to adopt a proactive stance in challenging exclusionary narratives within educational contexts.

However, the implications of this study extend beyond the immediate educational sphere. Policymakers and educational administrators play a pivotal role in shaping the structural conditions that either facilitate or hinder the integration of inclusive content in teacher training curricula. The study’s findings advocate for a comprehensive policy framework that aligns teacher training initiatives with broader educational objectives centered on equity and inclusivity. Such alignment would enable the implementation of systemic changes that address both curricular content and institutional practices, ultimately creating educational environments where diversity is not only acknowledged but actively promoted as a core value.

2. Theoretical Framework

Addressing hate speech in educational contexts not only responds to specific institutional needs but also aligns with broader international frameworks and human rights directives. The United Nations (UN) has underscored the urgent need to combat hate speech through its comprehensive Strategy and Plan of Action [2], which emphasizes the protection of human dignity and the promotion of tolerance as fundamental principles in countering hate speech. UNESCO has further highlighted the role of education in mitigating hate speech, advocating for the integration of inclusive and critical pedagogical approaches as essential strategies for fostering respect for diversity and countering online hate speech [3]. These global initiatives provide a crucial backdrop for the findings of this study, situating the proposed educational interventions within a wider context of international policy guidance.

Additionally, the OECD has examined the responses of member countries to the challenges posed by hate speech, particularly in relation to the protection and promotion of civic space [4]. This perspective is further supported by the 2023 Global Education Monitoring (GEM) report, which acknowledges the significant role of digital technology in both amplifying and combating hate speech in educational settings (UNESCO, 2021). By aligning the study’s findings with these international frameworks, the discussion emphasizes the relevance of addressing hate speech not only as a pedagogical concern but also as a policy imperative, reinforcing the need for systemic, multi-level interventions that integrate international human rights principles into teacher training programs.

Lingiardi et al. [5], in their study “Italian Hate Map”, analyze how digital dynamics have facilitated the expansion of hate speech and harmful behaviors in society. They identify the misuse and exploitation of social media for negative purposes, fueled by a false sense of anonymity and impunity, which enables the proliferation of verbal and symbolic violence in these spaces.

The study also highlights an increase in digital lynching and identity theft, creating a climate of harassment where intimidation and threats are perceived as normalized practices. Within this context, criminal behaviors often emerge, frequently justified or downplayed due to the growing normalization of hate speech and hate crimes. Additionally, the authors emphasize the confusion between freedom of expression and hate speech, which complicates the regulation and sanctioning of these phenomena. Finally, they underline the significance of digital traces, as every online interaction leaves evidence of the social impact of these discourses, reinforcing their permanence in the digital space and their real-life consequences.

Arcila-Calderón et al. [6] have examined the relationship between hate speech and migration, while Apolo et al. [7] have studied it from the perspective of political ideology, and Piñeiro-Otero and Martínez-Rolán [8] have addressed its impact on gender-related issues. However, research on hate speech in educational settings remains limited, despite its relevance in the development of values and citizenship.

Scholars such as Sellars [9], Strossen [10], and Tsesis [11] highlight that the dissemination of hate speech constitutes a complex problem requiring a comprehensive response from both society and academic and educational spaces. These expressions not only have individual repercussions but also influence identity construction and the formation of democratic citizenship, ultimately affecting social coexistence and the development of inclusive values.

Žižek [12] provides a critical perspective that problematizes the assumptions of rational discourse in the public sphere, challenging the notion that open debate can be free from coercion and power imbalances. He asserts that the very framework of rational communication can perpetuate ideological control, masking power structures under the guise of neutrality. Žižek [12] questions the suspension of status inequalities, arguing that societal hierarchies are not easily dismantled through mere discourse. Instead, he emphasizes that debates often reinforce dominant ideological positions while suppressing dissenting voices, creating an illusion of open accessibility that systematically excludes marginalized perspectives. Furthermore, Žižek [12] critiques the concept of rational acceptance as a mechanism through which hegemonic norms are perpetuated, framing ideological conformity as the ‘reasonable’ stance. Thus, for Žižek [12], the public sphere is less a space of democratic engagement and more a battleground where ideological conflicts are waged under the guise of rational discourse.

Horwitz [13,14] introduces a set of hypotheses that effectively frame the discussion on hate speech in digital networks, particularly emphasizing how social media serves not only as a platform for the dissemination of existing ideological positions but also as a site for the production and amplification of hate speech. Žižek’s [12] critique of ideological control provides a valuable framework for understanding how social media can reinforce authoritarian, conservative, and xenophobic narratives under the guise of breaking silences or expressing ‘truths’. Žižek’s [12] analysis underscores the ideological mechanisms that transform expressions of power and exclusion into perceived acts of resistance or authentic self-expression, thereby normalizing hate speech as a form of ideological assertion. This theoretical linkage clarifies why hate speech is often associated with authoritarian, conservative, and xenophobic positions, as these narratives are strategically framed as counter-narratives to perceived social or political repression, effectively utilizing the digital public sphere as a battleground for ideological dominance.

For these reasons, the relationship between social media and individuals who propagate hate speech tends to be associated with authoritarian, conservative, and xenophobic positions, often expressing sentiments suppressed by traditional communication systems. In general, hate speech is most commonly disseminated by individuals who identify as libertarians, republicans, or adherents of political extremism [15].

Democratic life necessitates a dynamic interaction among individuals within a community [16]. People adopt different positions on societal phenomena, exploring diverse pathways to achieve social well-being. Today, such exchanges increasingly take place through social media. As Colleoni et al. [17] argue, aspects such as social identity and difference are fundamental resources in education and individual development. However, these processes are hindered when the social context fosters the production and reproduction of hate speech [18].

Lehman [19] and Wachs et al. [20] concur that hate speech in educational settings extends beyond student interactions and may also involve teachers, administrators, support staff, and other members of the school community. Hate speech typically targets individuals based on immutable characteristics [18]. Gagliardone et al. [21] further argue that such environments cultivate intolerance, reinforce prejudices, foster hostility, and, in many cases, incite violent actors.

The scope of hate speech extends to various marginalized groups, including individuals with disabilities, who are disproportionately targeted by such discourse. Research indicates that people with disabilities are often victims of hate crimes and hate speech, with manifestations ranging from verbal harassment to physical violence [22]. The inclusion of disability as a key category in discussions of hate speech is particularly pertinent in educational settings, where learners with disabilities may experience heightened vulnerability to discriminatory practices and exclusion. Thus, expanding the analysis to explicitly acknowledge disability not only aligns with the broader framework of inclusive education but also underscores the importance of addressing all forms of identity-based discrimination within teacher training programs.

In line with the broader argument that hate speech often targets immutable characteristics, it is essential to incorporate disability as a critical dimension of analysis. As noted by Macdonald and Morgan [22], the prevalence of hate speech against people with disabilities remains a pervasive and underreported issue, warranting more focused attention in educational research and policy discourse. By integrating this perspective, the study not only broadens its analytical framework but also reinforces the imperative for teacher training programs to adopt a more comprehensive approach to inclusivity, encompassing disability as a key axis of potential victimization and discrimination.

Parekh [23] states that hate speech identifies and stigmatizes specific groups based on inherent characteristics, fostering prejudice and attributing socially undesirable qualities to them. These narratives are primarily propagated and reinforced through digital social media, where they find a space for massive amplification. In this context, collectives such as feminism, diversity groups, and the LGBTQ+ community become primary targets of these hostile expressions, facing constant exposure to attacks and discrimination in digital environments [24].

Bazzaco et al. [25] compare the phenomenon of hate speech to an iceberg. At the tip are the visible manifestations of hate, with physical violence at the peak, along with other forms of verbal and physical aggression, such as vandalism, harassment, threats, intimidation, humiliation, and insults. The submerged portion of the iceberg represents the foundation of discrimination, including exclusion, prejudice, and stereotypes based on various factors. The ultimate aim of these actions is to silence, humiliate, intimidate, discriminate, exclude, belittle, dehumanize, degrade, persecute, threaten, harass, harm, discredit, incite violence, and engage in other behaviors intended to cause direct harm to individuals.

As Emcke [26] argues, it is now easier than ever to transmit hate speech and expressions through social media and digital platforms. However, not all hateful discourse constitutes a crime; in many cases, it merely consists of verbal attacks on human dignity under the pretext of freedom of expression, with no legal repercussions. Nonetheless, the normalization of such behavior can lead to various forms of violence. The current conditions make it exceptionally easy to produce and disseminate digital content expressing hate [26]. The problem is exacerbated by the vast reach of social media, a situation vastly different from past eras when digital communication did not exist. In this context, adolescents and young people are particularly vulnerable to these phenomena (Bazzaco et al. [25]).

The dissemination of prejudices and stereotypes, while not always constituting a crime, represents a direct attack on human dignity. According to Bazzaco et al. [27], such expressions can be considered hate-motivated incidents, and their existence fosters an environment conducive to the proliferation of hate crimes. These manifestations range from physical assaults against individuals based on immutable or mutable characteristics—such as ethnicity, language, religion, nationality, or gender—to more subtle forms of exclusion and discrimination. Aggressions can also target material symbols representative of certain groups, such as flags, monuments, or buildings, reinforcing the symbolic weight of hatred. Moreover, belonging to the affected group is not a prerequisite for victimization; in many cases, merely expressing solidarity with marginalized communities is enough to become a target of attacks.

Within this context, education plays a fundamental role as a space for transformation, promoting values of equity and human rights. However, in educational settings, it is crucial to distinguish between hate speech that warrants sanctions and expressions that, while morally questionable, fall under the protection of freedom of expression [28]. This distinction is particularly complex, as freedom of expression is a fundamental right in democratic societies. Nevertheless, hate speech often conflicts with other legally protected rights, creating tensions that necessitate a balanced regulatory approach.

3. Materials and Methods

This research employs a quantitative methodology, adopting a survey-based study with an exploratory-descriptive scope [29]. The selection of this methodology defines key aspects such as the research context, the target group or sample, the establishment of groups for investigation, the degree of control over the variables involved, and the statistical analysis to be conducted [30].

For this study, two primary objectives were established:

• Analyze the influence of hate speech in teacher training and its impact on the perceptions and attitudes of pre-service teachers regarding diversity, gender equity, and democratic values in the educational sphere.
• Identify the relationships between social media use and the dissemination of hate speech in educational contexts, exploring correlations between exposure to such discourse and students’ responses in constructing inclusive counter-narratives.

3.1. Data Collection Techniques

To achieve the study’s objectives, this research follows the methodological definitions outlined by Ortega-Sánchez [31], who identifies various methodologies applicable to descriptive-exploratory research, such as developmental, longitudinal, cross-sectional, cohort, survey-based, and observational studies. Given the aims of this study, a survey design was selected, employing a self-administered questionnaire [31]. This strategy focuses on the participants, as data are obtained directly from selected individuals to establish a foundation from which inferences can be made regarding a broader population [32].

Following Cohen et al. [29], this research adheres to six key stages in the survey process, adapted from Bryman’s [33] model. The first stage involves defining the research objectives and preparing the data collection instrument. This is followed by sampling planning, data collection, and finally, data analysis and interpretation. For more information, see Figure 1.

For the development of the survey study, we considered the assertions of Cohen et al. [29] regarding the phases of survey research. These phases were adapted to align with the research objectives, resulting in the following stages:

(a)

Definition of objectives.

(b)

Sample selection.

(c)

Survey design.

(d)

Validation by expert judges.

(e)

Pilot study.

(f)

Final survey.

(g)

Survey administration.

(h)

Data analysis.

(i)

Conclusions.

To ensure the validity of the instrument, the criteria proposed by Manheim and Rich [34] were taken into account. These authors distinguish three types of validity: internal, external, and statistical. According to Krippendorff [35], internal validity ensures that the study’s indicators and variables allow for the establishment of causal relationships while controlling for potential alternative explanations. External validity, on the other hand, assesses the generalizability of the obtained results to broader contexts. Lastly, statistical validity establishes a link between the reliability of the instrument and the analytical techniques used. This aspect depends on the appropriateness of the selected statistical method and the fulfillment of criteria such as normality, homoscedasticity, and other parameters that ensure replicability through multivariate techniques [36].

Regarding reliability and validity, the definitions provided byGroves et al. [37] were followed, applying Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of internal consistency. According toDillman et al. [38], in educational and social sciences research, a coefficient of 0.7 or higher is considered acceptable. In this study, a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84 was obtained, indicating high reliability and validity of the instrument, ensuring its robustness for measuring the analyzed variables.

3.2. Sample

For sample selection, two fundamental criteria in quantitative methodologies were considered: sample representativeness in relation to the target population and the possibility of generalizing the results to the entire population [39]. The study considers a population universe of n = 14,002 individuals, comprising students enrolled in initial teacher training programs in history, starting from the third semester of their curriculum. Based on statistical calculations recommended by Field [39] using the STATS software, a minimum sample size of n = 370 was determined. However, to ensure greater robustness in the analysis, the final sample size reached n = 1000 valid responses.

From a statistical perspective, the principles established by Bisquerra and Alzina [30] were applied, with special attention to two key aspects:

(a)

The standard error (SE) (95%), also known as the permissible sampling error, which represents the difference between the sample mean (X) and the population mean (μ).

(b)

The confidence level, which indicates the probability that the estimate derived from the sample accurately reflects the reality of the population.

These elements ensure the validity and reliability of the collected data, allowing for statistically supported conclusions.

The sampling approach used in this study corresponds to non-probabilistic convenience sampling, following the classification by Cohen et al. [29]. In this approach, participant selection is not based on a randomized process but rather on practical criteria related to the characteristics of the study. Factors such as participant availability, accessibility to the research field, and the willingness of individuals to participate were decisive in forming the sample. This type of sampling, also referred to as casual sampling, is commonly employed in studies where random selection is not feasible [40].

The following participant selection criteria were established:

(a)

Being an active student in an initial teacher training program in history.

(b)

Having completed at least three semesters in the curriculum progression.

It is important to note, as highlighted by Krosnick and Presser [40], that when research subjects are human participants, individual, cultural, and social differences cannot be entirely controlled through statistical procedures. Thus, while non-probabilistic sampling limits the generalizability of the findings, the sample was carefully designed to ensure adequate representativeness of the target population. This approach enables the study to yield relevant and contextually meaningful insights.

3.3. Data Analysis

The data analysis was conducted using a quantitative and inferential approach, allowing for the identification of patterns, relationships, and trends among the study variables. Inferential statistics were employed to extrapolate findings from the sample to the target population, ensuring an objective and replicable measurement process [39]. Correlational analysis techniques were applied to assess the strength and direction of relationships between different variables, utilizing association measures that facilitated inferences about the connection between key factors. These procedures enabled not only a descriptive analysis of the data but also the determination of statistically significant relationships, ensuring greater precision in the interpretation of the findings [29].

The study followed a hypothetico-deductive strategy, structuring the analysis around pre-established hypotheses, which were tested using inferential statistical techniques. Validation tests were conducted to ensure the reliability of the measurement instruments through internal consistency indices and normality tests, determining the adequacy of the data for robust statistical models [41]. Additionally, rigorous methodological criteria were applied to enhance the validity of the analysis, including bias control and statistical significance tests. These procedures strengthened the interpretation of results, providing a solid empirical foundation for understanding the investigated phenomenon [37].

The use of inferential statistics in this study not only facilitated the description of general trends but also enabled the establishment of causal and predictive relationships among variables. This analytical framework supports the formulation of conclusions and the generation of evidence-based recommendations, contributing to a deeper understanding of the studied phenomenon.

3.4. Ethical Considerations

The final version of the research instrument was submitted for approval to the Scientific Ethics Committee, where it was reviewed and accepted under Letter/Report No. 23-2024. The Santo Tomás Scientific Ethics Committee is duly accredited by the Resolution of the Ministry of Health No. 23136643/2023.

4. Results

4.1. Correlation Analysis: Positive Relationships

The analysis of positive correlations in the survey responses highlights how various dimensions of teacher training and educational policies are aligned toward a common objective: addressing hate speech from a gender perspective. These relationships, supported by statistical figures and percentages, underscore the consensus among students and educators regarding the importance of an integrated approach between educational institutions and public policies. To further examine the correlation results and the findings from the administered questionnaire, please refer to Appendix A and Appendix B.

The Relationship Between Teacher Training and the Role of the Ministry

With a correlation of 0.59, the highest recorded in the study, a significant relationship is established between the need for teacher training to address hate speech (P27) and the perception that the Ministry of Education must take an active role in providing tools (P28). 51% of respondents believe that teachers should receive specific training on hate speech, while 70% assert that the Ministry must generate the necessary resources and spaces for this purpose.

This strong relationship reflects a shared understanding: while teachers are the primary actors in the classroom, structural and policy support from the Ministry is essential to ensure the effectiveness of these initiatives. This connection highlights an interdependence that reinforces the need for public policies aligned with local educational needs.

The correlation of 0.57 between P28 and P33 demonstrates that ministerial support is directly linked to the willingness of teacher training programs to develop counter-narratives against hate speech from a gender perspective. 46% of respondents strongly agree that teacher education programs should integrate these topics at any stage of training. Additionally, 70% emphasize the importance of the Ministry not only supervising but also actively facilitating this inclusion by providing adequate resources.

This connection underscores the perception that a successful approach to combating hate speech requires efforts at both the institutional and governmental levels. While teacher education programs are seen as key spaces for transforming educational practices, they cannot operate in isolation.

The correlation of 0.55 between teacher preparation (P27) and the commitment of teacher education programs (P33) highlights the importance of integrating hate speech discussions as an essential component of teacher training. 55% of respondents believe that counter-narratives against hate speech should be incorporated into all educational content and stages. At the same time, 51% believe that teachers need specific training to address these issues. These findings indicate that both individual teacher preparation and institutional actions are perceived as complementary. The success of one largely depends on the commitment of the other, reinforcing the need for a coordinated and integrated approach to addressing hate speech in education.

The correlation of 0.53 between P28 (the role of the Ministry) and P30 (the responsibility of teacher educators) highlights how both actors are perceived as key players in addressing hate speech. 62% of respondents believe that teachers have a duty to prepare themselves and actively address hate speech from a gender perspective. Meanwhile, 70% reinforce the idea that the Ministry must provide the necessary tools to achieve this goal. This connection suggests that respondents do not view these responsibilities as mutually exclusive, but rather as complementary. Both public policies and individual actions within classrooms are necessary to create a meaningful impact.

A strong correlation of 0.49 between P7 and P14 indicates that social media use significantly influences the spread of hate speech. The same correlation value (0.49) is found between P25 and P26, showing that when hate speech appears, students tend to intervene immediately and also request that teachers develop specific content on the issue. Similarly, the correlation between P22 and P29 reflects the perception that addressing hate speech from a gender perspective in education is essential.

Additionally, a positive correlation of 0.48 between P5 and P11 suggests that teachers’ concern about hate speech from a gender perspective is directly linked to their rejection of such expressions. Finally, a correlation of 0.45 between P27 and P30 indicates a strong consensus on the need for teacher educators to receive specific training to address and counter hate speech from a gender perspective.

A correlation of 0.41 is observed between P23 and P30, as well as between P27 and P32. In the first case, the relationship suggests that incorporating gender perspectives in teacher training can foster student commitment to combating gender inequalities. This aligns with the idea that teacher educators have a duty to prepare for and address hate speech in their educational practice.

Moreover, a correlation of 0.40 between P9 and P16 suggests that incorporating and addressing hate speech in the classroom can contribute to reducing social inequalities, reinforcing the role of citizenship education as a fundamental pillar in student development. The same 0.40 correlation is found between P32 and P33, highlighting a relationship between the role of the Ministry of Education in providing tools and spaces for teachers to address inclusion and hate speech. This aspect is complemented by the responsibility of families and teacher training institutions, which must also actively participate in the construction of counter-narratives against hate speech from a gender perspective.

These positive correlations reveal a significant consensus on how different educational actors must collaborate to address hate speech. The data reflect a collective understanding that:

I.

Teacher training: It is essential and requires both institutional commitment (51–55%) and public policies (70%) to support its implementation.

II.

The role of the ministry: It is central, not only as a resource provider but also as a catalyst for structural changes in curricula and teaching practices.

III.

Teacher training programs: They are perceived as transformative spaces where addressing hate speech should be an integral and cross-cutting component (46%).

These positive relationships emphasize that success in combating hate speech depends on a collaborative and coordinated approach. However, they also suggest that any lack of coordination among these key actors could hinder progress toward inclusive education.

The positive correlations not only reveal areas of alignment but also represent a significant opportunity to consolidate efforts and move toward a more inclusive and equitable educational system.

4.2. Negative Relationships: A Data-Integrated Narrative

The analysis of negative correlations in the survey responses reveals significant tensions that hinder the integration of hate speech discussions from a gender perspective in initial teacher training programs. These tensions, represented by specific percentages, highlight substantial differences in the allocation of responsibilities and the implementation of initiatives in this area.

One of the most notable negative correlations appears between the positions expressed in P29 and P30, with a coefficient of −0.41. While 57% of respondents believe that teacher training programs should not be responsible for addressing hate speech, 62% assert that teachers have a duty to prepare themselves for addressing this issue as part of their social role.

This disparity points to a conflict between those who see this responsibility as belonging exclusively to other institutions, such as families or the state, and those who believe that the educational sphere has a direct responsibility in this matter. This disagreement could lead to uneven implementation of initiatives across different universities and training programs, depending on how institutional authorities interpret these responsibilities.

Another significant negative correlation (−0.32) emerges between P28 and P29. Here, 70% of respondents strongly agree that the Ministry of Education should take responsibility for providing tools to address hate speech in teacher education programs. However, 57% of the same respondents argue that these responsibilities should not fall on teacher training institutions, creating an apparent contradiction.

This tension reflects a high expectation of the Ministry as the primary actor, but also a perception that teacher training programs lack the structure, resources, or expertise to assume an active role in this task. These findings emphasize the need for collaboration between both levels to prevent initiatives from becoming stagnant in a vacuum of responsibilities.

The negative correlation between P27 and P30 (−0.29) also reveals significant divergence. While 51% of respondents believe that teachers should be trained to address hate speech, 62% perceive that this is an inherent responsibility of teachers as part of their educational role. However, this expectation does not always translate into clear support for curricular changes, as 18% believe that teacher training should focus exclusively on disciplinary content, relegating gender and diversity perspectives to a secondary role.

This conflict highlights resistance to change within certain sectors of the educational field, where traditional content is prioritized over more integrative and social approaches. The negative correlation between P29 and P33 (−0.30) indicates disagreement over whether teacher training programs should be responsible for constructing counter-narratives against hate speech. While 55% strongly agree that this work should be carried out at any stage of teacher training, 57% believe that educational institutions should not prioritize this task.

These figures suggest a disconnect between the recognition of the importance of addressing hate speech and the perception of who should lead this effort. The lack of consensus complicates the development of coherent and effective strategies within teacher training programs. The negative correlations and associated percentages reflect a series of structural and conceptual tensions that hinder the implementation of effective programs to combat hate speech in educational settings. The coexistence of opposing views—some prioritizing the role of the Ministry of Education, while others delegate responsibilities to teacher training programs—emphasizes the need for greater coordination between public policies and educational institutions.

5. Discussion: The Impact of Teacher Training on Preventing Hate Speech

The results of this study indicate that students who value inclusion and respect for diversity—whether cultural, gender-related, or sexual orientation-based—consider it essential to incorporate these topics into their training. This aligns with Lehman [42], who emphasizes that education in diversity and inclusive values is key to constructing learning environments based on respect and the rejection of hostility toward differences. A teacher training program with an inclusive approach enables educators to assume an active role in promoting an ethic of respect, thereby reducing the prevalence of hate speech and discrimination.

Furthermore, the findings reveal a connection between a positive stance on inclusion and the role of education in preventing hate speech, in line with the arguments of Wachs et al. [43]. These authors contend that training in diversity and coexistence not only sensitizes future teachers but also equips them with practical tools to recognize and counteract hate speech in the classroom. The results suggest that students who consider gender and cultural diversity topics essential in the curriculum tend to be more proactive in preventing hate speech. This reinforces the idea that comprehensive training in diversity not only strengthens inclusive attitudes but also fosters an ethic of respect within educational spaces.

Kant [44] argues that every human being possesses an intrinsic value known as “dignity”, derived from their rational capacity and moral autonomy. This concept is articulated through the categorical imperative, which in one of its formulations states, “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.” [45], p. 47.

This principle implies that individuals must be treated with respect, recognizing their intrinsic worth and avoiding their instrumentalization for purposes foreign to their own dignity. Similarly, Hannah Arendt [45] considers education to be the first domain where young people learn to engage with the world and others, playing a crucial role in the formation of active citizens in a pluralistic society. In The Crisis in Education, Arendt [45] argues that education is a political act, as it involves introducing new generations into a shared world, fostering responsibility, and respect for diversity [46], p. 189. Educators, therefore, bear the responsibility of preparing students to participate in a diverse community, promoting plurality, and teaching respect for differences as fundamental principles of social life.

From an ethical perspective, training future teachers in respect for diversity is not only a pedagogical necessity but also a moral imperative in the construction of inclusive societies. Contemporary scholars such as Nussbaum [46] argue that education must be grounded in the recognition of human dignity, fostering empathy and respect as fundamental principles for coexistence. Thus, the teaching of inclusive values extends beyond the classroom, contributing to the eradication of prejudice and hate speech in the broader social sphere.

In this sense, education is not merely a means of knowledge transmission but also a space for political socialization. Biesta [47] argues that the act of educating involves preparing students for active citizenship, enabling them to interact within a world characterized by diversity. Inclusive teaching, therefore, is not only about providing educators with pedagogical tools but also with a critical understanding of their role as agents of social change.

Furthermore, recent research highlights that teachers who receive training in diversity and equity demonstrate greater willingness to intervene against hate speech in the classroom [43]. This suggests that the integration of these topics into teacher education programs not only strengthens the ethical and political commitment of educators but also directly impacts their ability to foster educational spaces where plurality and respect are central to learning.

Arendt [45] emphasizes that education must go beyond the mere transmission of knowledge, preparing individuals to coexist with diversity in a plural world [45]. Within the context of this study, students who value inclusion and respect for diversity perceive their role not only as future educators but also as agents of change, capable of influencing both their students and society. This political approach to education positions the teacher as a mediator of a culture of respect and plurality, which is fundamental in countering hate speech and promoting coexistence in the classroom.

The study’s findings reveal a positive relationship between the inclusion of diversity-related topics and the willingness to intervene against hate speech. Students who recognize the importance of inclusive education tend to act ethically, fostering respect and coexistence in their teaching practices. This reinforces the relevance of inclusive teacher training, not only as a pedagogical strategy but also as an ethical and political commitment. In this sense, education on diversity is not merely curricular content; rather, it is a key tool for constructing empathetic and equitable learning environments, aligning with Kant’s [44] principles of justice and human dignity and Arendt’s [45] notion of plurality.

Furthermore, coherence in attitudes toward diversity is a key factor in establishing an educational environment where respect and acceptance are actively practiced in teaching. The data indicate that students who support the inclusion of topics such as gender diversity, sexual orientation, and cultural diversity exhibit a consistent ethical and practical stance on inclusion [27]. This coherence not only reflects ethical maturity but also signals an active commitment to creating educational spaces where diversity is not only respected but also fostered and celebrated as a fundamental value.

In The Human Condition, Arendt [45] describes education as a political act that connects individual life with the shared world. For Arendt, education prepares young people to participate in a diverse and pluralistic society [45]. This political and ethical commitment to inclusion enables teachers to promote coexistence and mutual understanding in their classrooms, equipping students to participate critically and responsibly in social life.

The coherence in attitudes toward inclusion can also be interpreted through Emmanuel Levinas’s ethical framework and his notion of responsibility toward the “Other [48]”. In Ethics and Infinity, ref. [48] argues that ethics arises in the encounter with the Other, demanding a response of respect and responsibility. In the educational context, the coherence in inclusive attitudes among future teachers becomes an ethical response to otherness and student diversity.

This coherence not only ensures that educators respect differences but also drives them to act consistently and ethically in order to protect and celebrate diversity. For Levinas, [48] this ethical responsibility is not optional; it is an inherent obligation that emerges from recognizing the uniqueness and vulnerability of the Other. Therefore, the inclusive commitment of future educators is a manifestation of their willingness to respond to diversity with empathy and respect, rather than with hostility or rejection. This ethical stance is crucial in counteracting hate speech and fostering an educational space where all students feel valued.

From a critical perspective, Slavoj Žižek [12] offers an analysis of coherence and ideological contradictions in social and educational contexts. Žižek [12] argues that attitudes toward inclusion and respect for diversity can sometimes be superficial or ideologically biased, masking power relations or subtler forms of discrimination. In this sense, coherence in inclusive attitudes among future educators must not be a mere formality; it must represent an authentic and critical stance, capable of questioning personal prejudices and resistances.

According to Žižek [12], educating for inclusion and respect not only requires transmitting these values but also demands a constant critique of the ideologies and structures that perpetuate exclusion. Teachers who demonstrate genuine coherence in their commitment to inclusion are better prepared to identify and challenge ideological contradictions and subtle forms of discrimination in both the classroom and society. This fosters a critical pedagogy that challenges hate speech narratives and structural forms of discrimination, ultimately contributing to a more inclusive and equitable educational system.

Coherence in attitudes toward inclusion and diversity is an essential pillar of professional teaching ethics. The findings of this study indicate that students with a consistent inclusive stance do not merely transmit values of respect and justice, but they also authentically integrate them into their educational practice. This alignment between thought and action is crucial for the creation of learning environments where diversity is not only tolerated but actively celebrated.

This coherence is linked to Levinas’s [48] ethical responsibility toward the Other, which holds that recognizing the Other entails an inescapable moral commitment. Similarly, Žižek’s [12] ideological critique warns that inclusive discourse must go beyond mere rhetoric, actively challenging structures that perpetuate exclusion. Finally, Nietzsche’s [49] radical acceptance of diversity emphasizes the importance of questioning imposed norms and embracing plurality as an essential trait of the human condition. Together, these philosophical perspectives provide a solid framework for understanding how coherence in inclusive attitudes enables future educators to assume an ethical and political role, positioning education as a space for social transformation based on equity and respect.

Diversity as a Source of Conflict: A Critical Perspective

However, some future educators perceive diversity as a source of conflict, a position that can be analyzed through Žižek’s [12] critical perspective. Žižek [12] argues that cultural and social differences are sometimes ideologically manipulated to divide and antagonize people, generating tensions instead of cohesion. The findings of this study reflect this issue, as some students view inclusion as a potential factor of classroom fragmentation. From this perspective, diversity is not seen as an asset but rather as a challenge that may disrupt group harmony.

For Žižek [12], these divisions are not caused by diversity itself but by ideological structures that generate distrust and fear of difference. This perception poses a significant barrier in teacher training, as those who view diversity as a problem may, even unintentionally, perpetuate prejudices and exclusionary attitudes, hindering the development of an inclusive environment and reinforcing hate speech. These findings emphasize the urgent need for teacher education that not only promotes inclusion but also helps future educators deconstruct ideological narratives about diversity and critically examine their own biases, aligning with both Žižek’s [12] critical approach and Lehman’s [19] inclusive education model.

From an ethical perspective, Levinas [48] asserts that the relationship with the “Other” is fundamentally an inescapable moral responsibility. Applied to the educational context, this suggests that future educators must conceive diversity not as an obstacle but as an opportunity to respond with empathy and respect to students’ differences. The perception of diversity as a cohesive force reflects a Levinasian approach to openness toward the Other, where teachers commit to valuing and respecting each student’s identity and perspective. This perspective is essential in combating hate speech, as it fosters an ethics of care and a commitment to the protection and well-being of all students, regardless of their differences.

The discussion section has been further developed to address the nuanced interplay between ethical commitments to inclusion, as articulated by Arendt [45] and Levinas [48], and the critical examination of ideological structures, as proposed by Žižek [12]. While Arendt [45] underscores the transformative potential of plurality and diversity in cultivating democratic citizenship, Žižek’s [12] critique complicates this perspective by revealing how discourses of inclusion may, at times, obscure underlying power dynamics and ideological biases. This dual framework highlights the tension between the ethical imperative to embrace diversity and the critical necessity to interrogate how such narratives may be co-opted to maintain hegemonic structures. In this sense, the inclusion of Žižek’s [12] critique offers a pivotal shift in focus, urging future educators not only to commit to inclusive practices but also to critically assess the ideological underpinnings of such commitments, thus fostering a more reflective and impactful pedagogical approach.

Kenner et al., [50] further emphasize that the real challenge of inclusiveness lies not only in promoting ethical stances but in actively deconstructing the ideological frameworks that perpetuate exclusionary practices under the guise of neutrality. This perspective resonates with Žižek’s [12] assertion that attitudes toward diversity can be superficially adopted without genuine structural change, effectively masking persistent inequalities. Thus, the findings of the present study, while limited in scope, underscore the necessity for teacher training programs to move beyond ethical commitments and engage in critical pedagogy that actively interrogates ideological narratives. This approach not only aligns with Žižek’s [12] critique but also positions educators as agents of change capable of challenging ideological contradictions and fostering truly inclusive educational environments.

6. Conclusions

The findings of this study highlight teacher training in diversity as a fundamental pillar in the construction of inclusive educational environments and the prevention of hate speech. The results suggest that future educators who perceive diversity as a factor of cohesion tend to adopt attitudes and practices that not only promote respect but also actively foster an appreciation for differences. This contributes to the creation of a learning climate where all students can fully develop. From the perspective of inclusive education theory, diversity in the classroom not only enriches learning experiences but is also key to shaping individuals who are tolerant and committed to democratic coexistence [27].

From a philosophical perspective, Arendt [45] reinforces this idea by conceiving plurality as an essential condition for public life and democracy. According to Arendt [45], the diversity of perspectives is the foundation of an authentic democratic community, where interaction and mutual respect are essential for coexistence. In the educational sphere, teachers who recognize diversity as a positive value for cohesion can transmit this ethic of plurality within their classrooms. This means not only teaching knowledge but also instilling in students the ability to value and respect differences as the foundation for social understanding and coexistence.

Beyond its political dimension, training in diversity responds to a fundamental ethical responsibility toward the Other, in line with Levinas’s [48] philosophy. For Levinas, the encounter with the “Other” is not merely an act of tolerance, but rather an ethical call that demands a response of care and respect. In the educational context, this implies that teachers must assume a profound moral commitment toward their students, promoting the inclusion of differences as a way to recognize and honor the alterity of each individual.

This approach not only contributes to eradicating hate speech but also enables the construction of an environment where the dignity of every student is respected and protected, fostering safe, welcoming, and equitable learning spaces.

The findings of this study underscore the urgent need for teacher training that challenges ideological resistances and inconsistencies in attitudes toward diversity. Overcoming these barriers is not only a pedagogical concern but also an ethical and social imperative, aligned with the principles of justice and equity that should guide education. A critical approach to teacher training enables future educators to assume their role not only as knowledge transmitters but also as agents of change, committed to creating educational spaces where all students feel valued and safe.

The discussion underscores the centrality of teachers’ values in shaping inclusive educational practices, a theme that aligns with the extensive work on values-based teacher education by Booth [51]. Booth [51] emphasizes that fostering inclusive values within teacher training not only prepares educators to address hate speech effectively but also reinforces their ethical and moral responsibilities to uphold the rights of all students, particularly those from marginalized or vulnerable groups. This perspective is further supported by the European Agency’s examination of teacher professional learning for inclusion, which advocates for a cross-country approach to integrating inclusive values into teacher education as a means of addressing systemic inequities and promoting respect for human rights in educational settings. By situating the findings within this broader framework, the study reinforces the argument that inclusive teacher training is not only a pedagogical imperative but also a moral and ethical obligation.

Furthermore, the concept of values-based education situates the role of teachers as key agents in countering hate speech, framing it as a violation of fundamental human rights. As Booth [51] and the European Agency [52] suggest, the integration of inclusive values within teacher training is essential for equipping educators with both the practical strategies and the ethical frameworks necessary to confront discriminatory narratives and promote a culture of respect and acceptance. This approach not only aligns with international policy frameworks on human rights but also emphasizes the dual responsibility of teachers to act as both educators and protectors of student dignity, positioning inclusive education as a cornerstone of broader anti-discrimination efforts within educational systems.

This approach necessitates fostering critical reflection and self-reflection, in alignment with Žižek’s [12] ideas, allowing teachers to question their own biases and challenge ideologies that perpetuate exclusion. From Levinas’s [48] ethical perspective, inclusive education must promote a profound moral commitment to otherness, viewing diversity not as an obstacle but as an inherent responsibility of the teaching profession. By confronting ideological resistances, teacher training not only transforms the educational environment but also reinforces a culture of inclusion and cohesion, essential for the construction of a more just and equitable society.