Hate speech has long since become an educational problem. Students are confronted with it not only online but also at school. They hear racist remarks, sexist memes, homophobic jokes, or humiliating comments about religion, origin, or gender. And although schools are often the place where such tensions become visible, they are simultaneously one of the few places where something can be done about it systematically.

A new systematic review by Kansok-Dusche and colleagues mapped 27 school programs on hate speech and examined which characteristics appear to be of high quality and potentially effective. What is interesting about this review is that the researchers not only looked at scientific criteria but also explicitly surveyed teachers and students about what they believe works in practice.

The first finding is both hopeful and confronting. Many initiatives already exist. But their quality differs strongly. Many programs have a weak theoretical foundation. Many were only evaluated briefly. Only one program included a real summative effect evaluation. In other words, we often see good intentions, but much less solid evidence of effectiveness.

Still, clear patterns emerge in the stronger programs.

First, effective approaches do more than simply say that hate speech is wrong. Strong programs combine prevention and intervention. They try to influence attitudes and also teach students what they can do when they encounter hate speech. Students learn counterspeech. They practise responding as bystanders. They learn to engage critically with online communication.

Strong programs also look beyond the individual student. Many use a multi-level approach. They work simultaneously on individual skills, classroom dynamics, school culture, and sometimes even online communities. That makes sense. Hate speech rarely comes only from “bad individuals.” Context matters. Peer pressure matters. Norms and online dynamics matter too.

Another striking element is the importance of active learning methods. I’ll leave the didactic discussion for another time. But the review shows that effective programs often rely on role play, discussions, case studies, creative assignments, and reflection exercises. That fits with what we already know from educational and prevention sciences. Students do not learn social skills simply by hearing about them. They learn them by practising them.

Relationship building also matters. Researchers and school teams both emphasise this. Programs need to invest in positive relationships among students, as well as between students and adults. That may sound less spectacular than technological solutions or strict sanctions, but it is probably crucial. In schools where students feel connected and where teachers communicate clear norms, hate speech is less likely to become normalised.

Students and teachers also highlight elements that are sometimes less visible in scientific models. Students want voluntariness. They do not want to be forced to share personal experiences. Teachers ask for flexibility so they can adapt activities to their classroom context. That immediately creates an interesting tension. Research shows that too much flexibility can weaken programs because consistent implementation often matters. But schools are not laboratories either.

The review also makes clear that many programs still focus primarily on awareness-raising. That is understandable, but probably not enough. Knowing what hate speech is does not automatically mean that young people respond differently when they encounter it in a group chat or on the playground.

None of this means schools have to solve everything alone. But the research does suggest that schools can play an important role, as long as the approach goes beyond a single workshop or a one-off theme day. Sustainability matters. Interaction matters. Relationships matter. Clear norms matter. Probably more than symbolic actions do.

Tackling hate speech in schools is therefore about more than combating extremism. It is also about building classroom and school cultures where humiliation becomes less normal. Where students learn how to respond when boundaries are crossed. And where online behaviour is not treated separately from living together offline.