Teacher Education, Diversity, and the Prevention of Hate Speech: Ethical and Political Foundations for Inclusive Citizenship
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper aims to present the results of a study on the awareness of hate speech by history pedagogy students at Chilean universities and reflects on the implications of the results for teacher education. The topic of ethical and political foundations for inclusive citizenship as a basis to engage – pedagogically – against hate speech is obviously important and – taking into account the contemporary global strengthening of authoritarian movements and discourses – urgent.
The author makes a very strong plea for inclusion, plurality and the embracement of difference, based on the ethical approaches of Arendt and Levinas (I could add Žižek here which seems to be crucial for the argument made by the author). The results are presented in a clear manner, based on diverse references from the field and the conclusions are important for the disciplinary field.
All in all, the argument is convincing with one major doubt: The relation between the results of the empirical study (4) and the discussion (5) is not clear. Until now, there is a lot of potential to improve the article’s argument by making this clear, even though this consists in identifying the limits of the study for the argument made in the discussion. Maybe, this problem is based in the methodological approach of a quantitative survey which – at least in this case – does not provide results which can lead to the – very good – arguments made in the discussion part (5).
In the following, I will be a bit more concrete:
(2) The theoretical framework includes a big number of studies concerning the topic. There are some paragraphs which do not serve the argument made in the article. The paragraph on Habermas (lines 67-74) seems to be decontextualized. This is true for the sentence above on Waldron (2010) (66-67) which would be more appropriate appearing elsewhere, e.g. in line 107. The Habermas point – the four conditions for the functioning of a civil discourse – could introduce a kind of an ideal blueprint to analyze hate speech as part of the civil sphere, but this remains more than unclear and must be contextualized – and maybe critically discussed since this is discussable as such and, for this field in particular, not a realistic goal for social media.
While the next point with Horwitz (2021, lines 75 ff.) introduces a very useful hypothesis, again, the contextualization for the argument is weak. It is not at all clear why from this (“for this reasons”, line 95) follows the argument (which is a good one as such) that hate speech is committed mostly by “authoritarian, conservative and xenophobic positions” (96-97).
The chapter of theoretical framework should be revised regarding the linearity of the argumentation.
(3) Materials and Methods: This part is very clear and there are no revisions to do.
(4) Results: This part is clear too. But, or here, or – maybe better – in the fifth section, the limitation for the arguments made in the discussion (5) should be reflected on.
(5) Discussion: Here, the plea for plurality, inclusion and the embracement of diversity is made very clear and strong, based on Arendt and Levinas – this is convincing, in general. Here, Arendt’s (2018) ethical point of view is described redundantly in 512 ff. and 567 f, even though, it is referring to two different texts of hers (which does not appear as such in the references). The author also adds the critique of ideology and discourse citing Žižek as one crucial dimension to not be based merely on an ethical viewpoint, but on analysis with the perspective of becoming an agent of change. Žižek’s critique “that attitudes toward inclusion and respect for diversity can sometimes be superficial or ideologically biased, masking power relations or subtler forms of discrimination” (591-593) is answered and “solved” at first with the idea of being committed (600) and then with the idea of deconstructing ideologies. Here, the real challenge of inclusiveness begins (Kenner, Kleinschmidt, Lange, 2025). This relationship between the ethical and the role of critique should be discussed deeper in the paper – and in relation to the (limited) insight the empirical study provides for that.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers. Their insightful feedback has been instrumental in refining the arguments and enhancing the overall clarity and depth of the manuscript. The incorporation of additional theoretical perspectives and empirical considerations, as suggested, has significantly strengthened the discussion, aligning it more closely with contemporary scholarly discourse on inclusiveness, ideological critique, and transformative pedagogy. We are grateful for the opportunity to revise and improve the work in response to such constructive and thought-provoking input.
The revision strategically integrates Slavoj Žižek’s (2008) critical framework, providing a nuanced critique of the assumptions underlying Habermas’s conceptualization of the public sphere. By foregrounding Žižek’s analysis, the text not only addresses the reviewers’ suggestions but also strengthens the theoretical foundation by emphasizing how power dynamics and ideological control persist even within ostensibly rational and egalitarian communicative contexts. Žižek’s perspective challenges the notion of status neutrality, open accessibility, and rational acceptance by unveiling how these discursive structures can serve as mechanisms for perpetuating dominant ideologies. This inclusion not only enriches the critical depth of the discussion but also aligns with contemporary critical theory approaches that interrogate the ideological underpinnings of public discourse.
In response to the reviewer’s feedback regarding the contextualization of Horwitz’s (2021) hypotheses and the subsequent argument linking hate speech to authoritarian, conservative, and xenophobic narratives, the revised text now establishes a more explicit theoretical connection. The integration of Žižek’s (2008) critique provides a critical framework that contextualizes how ideological mechanisms operate within digital networks, framing acts of hate speech as expressions of power and exclusion masked as acts of resistance or authenticity. By aligning Horwitz’s hypotheses with Žižek’s critique of ideological control, the revision clarifies the rationale behind the claim that hate speech is predominantly propagated by authoritarian and conservative positions. This approach not only addresses the reviewer’s concern but also enriches the theoretical foundation, positioning the digital public sphere as a contested ideological space where hate speech is strategically employed as a means of asserting ideological dominance.
In response to the reviewer’s feedback, the discussion section has been expanded to include a more comprehensive exploration of the relationship between ethical commitments to inclusion and critical perspectives on ideology. The inclusion of Žižek’s (2008) critique provides a counterpoint to the ethical frameworks established by Arendt (2018) and Levinas (2015), emphasizing the need to move beyond mere rhetorical commitments to inclusion and engage in a deeper analysis of how such discourses can perpetuate existing power structures.
Furthermore, the addition of Kenner, Kleinschmidt, and Lange (2025) strengthens the argument by highlighting the ongoing challenges of inclusiveness, particularly in terms of deconstructing ideological narratives that frame exclusionary practices as neutral or objective. These new paragraphs (lines 600-610) integrate both theoretical and empirical considerations, positioning teacher education as a critical site for fostering reflective and transformative pedagogical practices. This approach not only addresses the reviewer’s concern regarding the superficial treatment of inclusiveness but also aligns with current scholarly discourse on critical pedagogy and ideological critique.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI found this a very interesting and thought provoking article. This is an important topic – an issue that a topic that is gaining public and academic attention so I can see it being of interest to a wide audience.
It is well written and structured. I do not have detailed specific suggestions for editorial amendments, although I would suggest looking at the section/header numbering towards the end of the piece – line 623 – the section is numbered 4.2, but should it be 5.2?
Line 652 – should the conclusions be numbered section 6?
The data collection and analysis is appropriate, clearly presented and leads to a solid and potentially very applicable presentation of results and findings.
The discussion is, again, thought provoking and I think this piece can provide useful evidence to debates around the role of teacher education and training to promoting inclusion generally and preventing hate speech in particular.
Looking at the piece overall, I have 3 general areas I think the authors may want to consider to develop and contextualise the content a little more for the reader.
Firstly, I do miss a clear description of who you are targeting this information at and why.
Either through something general at the very beginning or some specific ‘signposting’ as part of the discussion and /or conclusions I think it would be good to be very clear on the target audience for this examination as it seems to me that the discussion and the findings are very relevant to teacher trainers, administrators and managers of higher education organisations that provide teacher training and potentially also national policy makers who set or somehow guide the goals for teacher education.
It would be useful to be clear on how you see your findings as being relevant to the sorts of decisions these actors need to make.
For example, in Section 4.1.1 you pick up on the issue of the relationship between teacher training and ministries and so being clear on which stakeholders you see the findings as being relevant for would be helpful for the reader.
Secondly, I found the use of background research literature relevant, but I missed some form of reference to / scene setting within a wider international policy guidance / human rights framework.
Hate speech is against international as well as national laws and against people’s human rights. The need to tackle the rise in hate speech is widely recognised by the United Nations i.e. UN Hate speech strategy https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/un-strategy-and-plan-of-action-on-hate-speech
UNESCO discussed tacking hate speech in education: https://www.unesco.org/en/countering-hate-speech/need-know#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20UN%20General,tolerance%20in%20countering%20hate%20speech%E2%80%9D.
OECD examined member countries responses to hate speech https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/the-protection-and-promotion-of-civic-space_d234e975-en.html
UNESCO also discussed countering online hate speech: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000233231?posInSet=1&queryId=141f5fbc-56e7-4b60-bebc-59593d2ea2c0
And the 2023 GEM report (https://www.unesco.org/gem-report/en/technology ) acknowledges the rise of digital technology in education as a factor in rise of hate speech.
Finally, I totally support your line of argument that teacher training can and should celebrate education for diversity and promote educational and wider societal inclusion. However, in your piece, I miss a specific reference to people with disabilities and the fact they are often disproportionately victims of hate speech and crime (for example see https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09687599.2018.1515723#:~:text=Previous%20British%20and%20American%20research,during%20the%20previous%2012%20months)
In line 111 you state ‘Hate speech typically targets individuals based on immutable characteristics’ I agree and would argue a person’s disability may also be considered here as well.
In lines 130, 176, 484 to mention / identify some groups who may be subjected to hate speech. Surely people/learners with disabilities should/could be added here? If not, why is this group not relevant to this study and the findings?
Finally, I think the line of argument in your discussion and conclusions highlighting teachers’ values as being such a crucial factor for inclusive practice is crucial. Values based teacher education has been extensively discussed by European researchers such as Tony Booth (e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11125-011-9200-z ) and in a cross country examination within the work of the European Agency (see https://www.european-agency.org/activities/teacher-professional-learning-for-inclusion ). If you want to develop this aspect of your discussion, I think it would strengthen the piece as it circles back to the idea that hate speech violate individuals’ human rights and teachers may have a moral/ethical duty as well as legal responsibility to address it.
Author Response
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments, which have been instrumental in significantly enhancing the quality and depth of the manuscript. The suggested additions, including the incorporation of key international frameworks, relevant empirical studies, and theoretical perspectives, have not only strengthened the analytical framework but also provided a more comprehensive and nuanced discussion of the implications for teacher training and policy development. We are confident that these revisions have greatly improved the manuscript, aligning it more closely with contemporary discussions on inclusive education and the prevention of hate speech within educational contexts.
The study primarily targets teacher trainers as the key audience, emphasizing the role they play in integrating inclusive practices and addressing hate speech within educational settings. However, the findings also hold relevance for policymakers, suggesting that systemic changes at the curricular and institutional levels are necessary to effectively incorporate these themes in teacher training programs. This dual focus highlights the need for alignment between practical pedagogical strategies and broader policy frameworks to foster truly inclusive educational environments.
In Section 4.1.1, the discussion of the relationship between teacher training and ministries underscores the importance of coordinated efforts to address hate speech through educational policies. By clarifying the intended audience, the revised text emphasizes how the study’s findings can inform both pedagogical approaches within teacher training and broader policy considerations that shape educational practices at the institutional level.
In response to the reviewer’s suggestion to incorporate a broader international policy and human rights framework, two new paragraphs have been added to contextualize the study within relevant international initiatives aimed at combating hate speech. The inclusion of references to the UN Hate Speech Strategy (United Nations, n.d.), UNESCO’s guidance on countering hate speech in education (UNESCO, 2021), the OECD’s report on civic space (OECD, 2023), and the 2023 GEM report on technology and education (UNESCO, 2023) situates the findings within a comprehensive global policy framework. These additions not only align the study with existing international efforts but also underscore the relevance of educational interventions in addressing hate speech as a broader policy imperative, reinforcing the call for systemic, multi-level strategies that integrate human rights principles into teacher training curricula.
In response to the reviewer's insightful suggestion, the revised manuscript now explicitly includes a focus on people with disabilities as a group that is disproportionately affected by hate speech. Drawing on the study by Macdonald and Morgan (2018), which examines the intersections of disability and hate crime, the discussion has been expanded to acknowledge the particular vulnerability of individuals with disabilities to discriminatory practices and exclusion. This perspective has been integrated into relevant sections, including discussions of immutable characteristics and targeted victimization, thereby aligning the analysis with broader frameworks of inclusivity and intersectionality.
Moreover, while the current study primarily employs a quantitative approach, the insights provided by Macdonald and Morgan (2018) will serve as a foundational basis for the subsequent qualitative phase of the research. This phase will further explore how hate speech is experienced and perceived by diverse student populations, including those with disabilities, thereby providing a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of hate speech in educational settings. By integrating these dimensions, the research aims to not only refine its analytical scope but also enhance the quality and depth of its findings in future phases.
In response to the reviewer’s suggestion to further develop the discussion on values-based teacher education, the manuscript has been expanded to incorporate the work of Booth (2011) and the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2023). Booth’s framework on inclusive values underscores the ethical and moral responsibilities of teachers to address hate speech as a violation of human rights, aligning with the study’s emphasis on teacher training as a key site for promoting inclusive practices. Additionally, the European Agency’s cross-country examination provides a broader policy perspective, reinforcing the argument that teacher training should not only equip educators with practical strategies but also cultivate a strong ethical commitment to upholding student dignity and confronting discriminatory narratives. These additions strengthen the theoretical grounding of the discussion and position the study within a wider international context of inclusive education and teacher development.
